Obamacare has resulted in better overall health... Go figure

[jtoler]

...

[rkelly110]

You're saying now that we've subsidized more peoples' insurance, they pay their bills with that insurance....so instead of hospitals (us) being stuck with the bill, the bills are now being funded by the taxpayers (us). Seems like a pretty safe prediction to make (that increased government funding of health insurance would ensure hospitals get paid and the taxpayer is still on the hook)....but it doesn't seem like much has changed, and certainly no evidence to support costs are coming down, with increasing evidence to the contrary

Either way we are paying for it, just the hospitals now, can't lie (inflate) about the uninsured who comes in.
Seems to me if hospitals can't inflate their uninsured, the less we have to pay them, eventually reducing
what we would have to pay in our monthly premiums and reducing what we pay in taxes.

Read the article.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Either way we are paying for it, just the hospitals now, can't lie (inflate) about the uninsured who comes in.
Seems to me if hospitals can't inflate their uninsured, the less we have to pay them, eventually reducing
what we would have to pay in our monthly premiums and reducing what we pay in taxes.

Read the article.

I read the article, and it said nothing about hospitals over-reporting their uninsured, or that premiums are coming down...and how exactly were we paying more for hospitals inflating those numbers again? Can't follow the logic of how that's supposed to save money...

The other mistake is thinking there are only two ways of doing it while forgetting about a third way: the easiest way to reduce the cost of treatment for the uninsured is to stop mandating treatment for the uninsured. Using force to make someone provide a service isn't the way to get the best price...doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp right? Let the uninsured or under-insured be cared for voluntarily, and let people fund those operations to the extent they want, and remove the barriers to competition in the market; that's the only way to decrease costs. Everything else is just shuffling the costs around, while adding more regulations and levels of bureaucracy which increase costs even further.

[rkelly110]

No, the article doesn't state over reporting, it says unpaid hospital bills are vanishing.

With unpaid hospital bills vanishing, hospitals can't claim that on their year end tax. You've heard doctors overcharging medicare, you can bet hospitals are padding their numbers to either get govt money to cover the cost of the uninsured or to greatly reduce their tax burden or both.

Hospital bills vanishing reduces the costs passed onto us. It should lower our monthly premiums in the future and
trickle down to lower taxes we have to pay.

Yeah, it does sound like a fantasy, but if we had a responsible govt, that fantasy could be a reality.

[Triple_D_Bet]

No, the article doesn't state over reporting, it says unpaid hospital bills are vanishing.

With unpaid hospital bills vanishing, hospitals can't claim that on their year end tax. You've heard doctors overcharging medicare, you can bet hospitals are padding their numbers to either get govt money to cover the cost of the uninsured or to greatly reduce their tax burden or both.

Hospital bills vanishing reduces the costs passed onto us. It should lower our monthly premiums in the future and
trickle down to lower taxes we have to pay.

Yeah, it does sound like a fantasy, but if we had a responsible govt, that fantasy could be a reality.

Remember the part where the previously-unpaid bills are being paid by us anyways? Except now instead of "paying" at a discounted/written off rate(having to make up for smaller taxes from hospitals, which is more of a function of a broken tax code than "paying"), we're on the hook for the full thing. "Lower premiums" isn't accurate, because they're only lower to the person paying them, not when the subsidies are added in. Higher premiums and taxpayers paying more is kind of the exact opposite of what you're claiming

[rkelly110]

Whatever. It's the law of the land (until the house and senate repeal maybe on the 100th try). Don't want
to buy insurance? Pay a fine. Even though we are forced to pay, everyone is being held responsible for their own actions.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Whatever. It's the law of the land (until the house and senate repeal maybe on the 100th try). Don't want
to buy insurance? Pay a fine. Even though we are forced to pay, everyone is being held responsible for their own actions.

Shrugging and saying "whatever, it's the law" has nothing to do with whether or not it's a wise law (which seems unsupported by any evidence, with strong implications to the contrary) or whether it's a constitutional law (certainly doesn't seem to be, but the Supreme Court appears to have convinced itself it is; important to note that the Supreme Court appointed itself as the sole interpreters of the Constitution, instead of relying upon what it actually says). If it's the unwise/unconstitutional law it appears to be, trying to repeal it is a wise course of action (or at least it would be if it was done on those grounds, instead of blatant partisanship).

When "we" (the taxpayers) are forced to pay for others, those others aren't being held responsible for their actions; we are. The only difference from before is that the cost for healthcare is not only increasingly shifted from people who have resources to those who don't, but increasingly from those who don't take good care of themselves to those who do....in effect, punishing the prosperous and the healthy. The system mandated by the ACA takes us much farther away from one where people are held responsible for their own actions, allowing anyone to make poor decisions regarding their health and career, and simply rely on government force to compel others to rescue them from the consequences of their actions. You don't need to be an expert in game theory to predict the consequences of disincentivizing personal responsibility, or to recognize the inconsistency in claiming something increases personal responsibility when the costs of the consequences are born by others

[rkelly110]

I shrugged it off, because there's really not much we can do about it. The best we can do is see the positive
in it and embrace it. Health insurance premiums still went up, but at their lowest. How can a private entity
have so much control over everyone without being regulated? This law is starting to reel them in.
Telling THEM who to cover, not them telling US. That's a good thing, right?

Medicare voucher system raised a big stink and still stinks, but it's the law of the land.
Another example of dumb ass voters voting against their interests. Repubs are wanting you guys
to work until you're 70, yet you guys will vote them in. Maybe not you, because you probably don't vote,
but you get my point.

So what you're saying is, what's yours is yours and should be your choice whether to give taxes or to charity?
Imagine if everyone did that.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I shrugged it off, because there's really not much we can do about it. The best we can do is see the positive
in it and embrace it. Health insurance premiums still went up, but at their lowest. How can a private entity
have so much control over everyone without being regulated? This law is starting to reel them in.
Telling THEM who to cover, not them telling US. That's a good thing, right?

Medicare voucher system raised a big stink and still stinks, but it's the law of the land.
Another example of dumb ass voters voting against their interests. Repubs are wanting you guys
to work until you're 70, yet you guys will vote them in. Maybe not you, because you probably don't vote,
but you get my point.

So what you're saying is, what's yours is yours and should be your choice whether to give taxes or to charity?
Imagine if everyone did that.

Laws aren't unchangeable, and you can try to educate people about why bad ones are bad and hopefully effect change down the road. "Seeing the positive" in unconstitutional and anti-liberty laws is the action of an apathetic person, not a responsible citizen. Premiums going up isn't at their lowest; going down would be lower...and as discussed before, the cost to the consumer isn't accurate now that it's even more heavily subsidized. Insurance companies, like other businesses, don't have control over anything when it's voluntarily purchased; consumers with options choose what they will and won't pay for....trying to make it mandatory while simultaneously restricting the choices (as the ACA does) only gives more control to the insurance companies you think need to be "reeled in". They're businesses; dictating to a business who it can and can't serve with the force of law isn't good for the business, for us, or for the concept of freedom.

People supporting the ACA are certainly doing so against their interests; they're either too apathetic, ignorant of economics, or caught up in the cult of personality surrounding "their" guy/team to realize it. How long someone works until they amass assets to retire should be determined by what they earn over their career and the quality of their investment choices; stealing from people who made good choices to fund those who made bad ones isn't compassion, it's just robbery. Most people vote for Republicans the same reason they vote for Democrats: they're convinced "their team" is the best and blindly throw their votes at them. As it happens, I vote for candidates, not parties...have yet to meet a Democrat who was the best choice, and only a few Republicans; Libertarian candidates are usually the only ones not trying to restrict liberty and aware of the futility of trying to protect people from themselves with stolen money.

"Whats yours is yours" is an essential right integral to what we were founded on and the concept of a civilized society. Every time the government sanctions stealing it to spend as someone else wishes, or mandates what you can or can't do with your property, that right is further eroded. Taxes are a necessary evil, and like any, every effort should be made to minimize them (minimizing the government spending that necessitates them), leaving people with as much of their money as possible and letting them choose what they want to do with it. If people gave to charity by choice only, people would fund charities in proportion to how necessary they truly feel they are; it's easy to clamor on about how this or that needs to be funded in a civilized society when it's not your money you want spent (and it rarely is; people overwhelmingly vote down proposals that make them pay directly). If charity was completely voluntary again, the rich who are so reviled would probably still fund most of the charity...the rest of us just would have to actually put our money where our mouth is, instead of stealing their money and spending it. Anyone can have an ignorant opinion on how to spend someone else's money; having them put their own money behind it, they'd hopefully put a little more thought into it and not make such foolish decisions.

[captrobey]

I do insurance for a living . I deal mainly in Medicare but i also do this as a courtesy. I say as a courtesy because it takes a long time to do then you get Paid next to nothing . All the problems i have come from these too . One problem is to get the subsidy they look at Household income not your individual income. So if you file Jointly you will most likely not get the Subsidy.

Yes, if for some reason you do not make a lot of money (I got a guy i am doing today who jointly is at $31000) you can get a good deal . However that is for the premium NOT the plan itself. Most plans have bad Deductibles . The one i like but it is not in every state is the Proactive plan. You get a better deal on it if you qualify for the Subsidy . This one is under the Silver section. You really cannot miss it being the only one there with a 0 Deductible .

If you do get a good Subsidy you can actually get a good premium a couple were under $1 a month . But as another poster pointed out middle class gets screwed because if it is a Joint filing of taxes you will not stay under the $63000 a year and there goes your savings.

A lot of people now just accept the penalty in that case being lower then an overpriced plan. Especially younger people who do not care and would rather pay a lower amount with the penalty .

And do not think about lying on your income they check it to make sure you are not lying to get a better discount. Personally i hate it. A big waste of my time in some cases. But they pay so little most agents will not help someone . I do but only because i feel bad for people .

[stevenash]

Socialism never works

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Cure for Obamacare (Encounter 2013).


Late last month, the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the most influential small business organizations in the country, withdrew its past support of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who is running for reelection, because of her backing of the Affordable Care Act. The NFIB promises that it will be “out in force” campaigning for her Republican opponent, Bill Cassidy.
Small businesses — not to mention their workers — have good reason to be miffed. Evidence is mounting that Obamacare raises health costs for small firms and thereby reduces workers’ wages. Writ large across the entire economy, the law is not just discouraging firms from creating new jobs — it’s actually reducing the size of the labor force.

Two new economic studies unpack Obamacare’s impact on the labor market.

The first, from the American Action Forum, shows that the law is reducing the pay of workers at small businesses — those with 20 to 99 employees — by at least $22.6 billion every year.

“On average, employees who work a full year for a business with 50-99 employees lose $935 annually due to ACA regulations, while employees of businesses with 20-49 employees, on average lose $827.50 annually,” the study noted.

Obamacare isn’t just reducing workers’ pay — it’s putting them out of work. The AAF study concludes that the law’s regulations and increased premiums are likely responsible for American employers having shed more than 350,000 jobs. California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Texas have each lost more than 20,000 jobs, thanks to Obamacare.


Killing jobs and reducing pay is bad enough. But another report, from the American Health Policy Institute, finds that Obamacare will also shrink the labor force by reducing incentives to work.

In other words, workers are going to get squeezed from both sides. There will be less demand for them even as Obamacare makes it less financially appealing to have a job.

The AHPI report concludes that Obamacare imposes on businesses “additional costs of $4,800 to $5,900 per employee over the course of a decade.” In the next ten years, the total cost of the law to American employers will be between $157 billion to $186 billion.

Additional costs spell slow — or even no — job growth.

The AHPI study also points to a survey of 691 small employers conducted by theInternational Foundation of Employee Benefits Plans showing that “one in ten has reduced hiring in order to stay under the 50-employee ACA threshold for small employers.”
Federal Reserve data reveal a similar trend — that employers are hiring more part-time workers to avoid Obamacare’s penalties and save money.

At the same time, the law is driving people to avoid seeking work altogether.

Obamacare grants many Americans subsidies to help pay for health coverage. These subsidies are pegged to their income levels — the less they make, the more they get from the government.

That creates a substantial disincentive for people to work more — or at all. Picking up more hours or shifts can lead to the loss of hundreds or even thousands of dollars’ worth of health insurance subsidies.

“The size of the subsidy allotted to recipients can decline by as much as 50 cents for each dollar of additional earnings,” notes the AHPI report. “In order to preserve or gain higher subsidies, work may seem less attractive to some individuals, thus leading them to substitute other activities for work.”

Then there’s Obamacare’s massive tax burden. “The ACA will increase marginal taxes by an average of five percentage points of employee compensation . . . the ACA will impose the third largest increase in marginal tax rates in the past 60 years, lowering the return from working by approximately 10 percent,” according to the AHPI report.

Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw estimates that a marginal tax hike like that will reduce the labor supply by 5 percent.
The labor force participation rate is already at its lowest point since 1978. Just 62.8 percent of able-bodied adults are working or looking for a job.

Fewer workers mean fewer taxpayers — even as more people become dependent on the government handouts that those taxes pay for.

The harm Obamacare does to employers and employees is already abundantly clear, and it’s only going to get worse. If we want healthy and sustainable labor markets, there’s no way around it — we have to repeal and replace Obamacare.

[captrobey]

So here you go-the reason noone wants to do these stupid applications. I just literally finished a half hour ago. Started at 10 AM and took me 2.5 hours to complete. The site 3 different times forced me to start over from scratch . Took all this time and i will make next to nothing . But it helped someone so that is good.

[recon1]

If the ACA AKA: 'Obama-care was and is so great why did Congress, Senate and executive vote not to implement it for themselves, family and staffers few years back?????????????????

[captrobey]

If the ACA AKA: 'Obama-care was and is so great why did Congress, Senate and executive vote not to implement it for themselves, family and staffers few years back?????????????????

Because it really is for more of a low income person. To qualify a household must make under $66000 . They all make over that. And like i said if you jointly file taxes they look at your combined income. I have many who make next to nothing but the spouse makes over $66000 and they end up paying the full price. The one i signed up today was more of a rare case where both husband and wife only made under $31000 so the subsidy was really good . I think the plan originally cost $550 a month and he got it for $120 or so . The less you make the more you get. But if you go too low then you have to get Medicaid .

[boeing power]

Because it really is for more of a low income person. To qualify a household must make under $66000 . They all make over that. And like i said if you jointly file taxes they look at your combined income. I have many who make next to nothing but the spouse makes over $66000 and they end up paying the full price. The one i signed up today was more of a rare case where both husband and wife only made under $31000 so the subsidy was really good . I think the plan originally cost $550 a month and he got it for $120 or so . The less you make the more you get. But if you go too low then you have to get Medicaid .

So poor people and lower income people get cheap Medicare?

The people that need it.

Wow that Obama is a bad man.

[captrobey]

So poor people and lower income people get cheap Medicare?

The people that need it.

Wow that Obama is a bad man.

No actually the Exchanges have nothing to do with Medicare. Once a person reaches 65 they can no longer get a subsidy they must go fully onto Medicare . The Exchanges are for everyone UNDER 65. Trust me i would rather just do Medicare it has less problems and i get paid way more.

[boeing power]

No actually the Exchanges have nothing to do with Medicare. Once a person reaches 65 they can no longer get a subsidy they must go fully onto Medicare . The Exchanges are for everyone UNDER 65. Trust me i would rather just do Medicare it has less problems and i get paid way more.

Sorry I'm Canadian....I thought it was all called Medicare.

i just meant that lower income families get cheaper medical and that's a good thing.

In Canada we all get Medicare basically. Of course we get taxed more and higher income people get taxed more.

Its not a perfect system, but it's pretty good.

[gauchojake]

Don't worry Boeing, most Americans don't have a clue about how insurance works in the US. I've been debating taking some time to actually type out a cheat sheet so people can have a more educated conversation about the ACA. Maybe later.

[captrobey]

Sorry I'm Canadian....I thought it was all called Medicare.

i just meant that lower income families get cheaper medical and that's a good thing.

In Canada we all get Medicare basically. Of course we get taxed more and higher income people get taxed more.

Its not a perfect system, but it's pretty good.

Do not feel bad i get that all the time. Clients with Medicare want to know how the Exchanges will effect them . The answer is not at all .

[Triple_D_Bet]

I do insurance for a living . I deal mainly in Medicare but i also do this as a courtesy. I say as a courtesy because it takes a long time to do then you get Paid next to nothing . All the problems i have come from these too . One problem is to get the subsidy they look at Household income not your individual income. So if you file Jointly you will most likely not get the Subsidy.

Yes, if for some reason you do not make a lot of money (I got a guy i am doing today who jointly is at $31000) you can get a good deal . However that is for the premium NOT the plan itself. Most plans have bad Deductibles . The one i like but it is not in every state is the Proactive plan. You get a better deal on it if you qualify for the Subsidy . This one is under the Silver section. You really cannot miss it being the only one there with a 0 Deductible .

If you do get a good Subsidy you can actually get a good premium a couple were under $1 a month . But as another poster pointed out middle class gets screwed because if it is a Joint filing of taxes you will not stay under the $63000 a year and there goes your savings.

A lot of people now just accept the penalty in that case being lower then an overpriced plan. Especially younger people who do not care and would rather pay a lower amount with the penalty .

And do not think about lying on your income they check it to make sure you are not lying to get a better discount. Personally i hate it. A big waste of my time in some cases. But they pay so little most agents will not help someone . I do but only because i feel bad for people .

The illogical disparity requirements (setting maximums on differences between costs for either extreme in health, regardless of actual costs associated with the differences) tries to shift the burden on to younger, healthier individuals...but why take that burden when you can pay a smaller fine and just apply for guaranteed-coverage if something happens?

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Cure for Obamacare (Encounter 2013)....etc

Part of the problem: even articles trying to make the correct argument use faulty logic, such as counting number of jobs instead of quality. Just encourages people to argue the semantics of the meaningless data and prevents ever talking about the actual issue.

[gauchojake]

I want to live in Triple D's Libertarian Utopia!

I actually agree with you on the tax issue and the over reach of government, but there is no way we could possibly unwind Medicare, Medicaid, or EMTALA (Thanks Reagan!) let alone all three. The US has a rich tradition of philanthropy especially in the healthcare segment (VNA's, Community Hospitals, etc) but there is no way to replace the current system in an orderly fashion via charity.

[captrobey]

The illogical disparity requirements (setting maximums on differences between costs for either extreme in health, regardless of actual costs associated with the differences) tries to shift the burden on to younger, healthier individuals...but why take that burden when you can pay a smaller fine and just apply for guaranteed-coverage if something happens?



Part of the problem: even articles trying to make the correct argument use faulty logic, such as counting number of jobs instead of quality. Just encourages people to argue the semantics of the meaningless data and prevents ever talking about the actual issue.

Because you cannot just apply like that anytime . You only can join certain times and if you do not you cannot get the coverage until the next enrollment period. The last one was March 15th i think it was.. Unless you have a special situation like coming off work coverage. Or if you are in the Medicaid spot and they take that away because you make too much you would get a chance to change. So if something happens you are stuck paying the bill .

[recon1]

Don't worry Boeing, most Americans don't have a clue about how insurance works in the US. I've been debating taking some time to actually type out a cheat sheet so people can have a more educated conversation about the ACA. Maybe later.

I'll refrain from saying anymore at this point. When you take the time to explain insurance please put an emphasis on the ACA. I've heard and read so many different things it would be nice to hear from someone in the know. PM me if you can remember with a link to the write up, i'll definitely read it.
Thanks

[gauchojake]

I'll refrain from saying anymore at this point. When you take the time to explain insurance please put an emphasis on the ACA. I've heard and read so many different things it would be nice to hear from someone in the know. PM me if you can remember with a link to the write up, i'll definitely read it.
Thanks

Sure thing. To be honest my head starts to feel like that guy in Scanners when I think about typing it up. The way that healthcare is delivered and paid for in the US is very convoluted. I've worked in healthcare for 15 years selling supplies and medical devices to just about every provider type. I also have experience contracting and have worked with large health plans and commercial insurers. I don't know everything about the ACA, but I can speak about it's effects on providers and on the mindset of the payers themselves.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I want to live in Triple D's Libertarian Utopia!

I actually agree with you on the tax issue and the over reach of government, but there is no way we could possibly unwind Medicare, Medicaid, or EMTALA (Thanks Reagan!) let alone all three. The US has a rich tradition of philanthropy especially in the healthcare segment (VNA's, Community Hospitals, etc) but there is no way to replace the current system in an orderly fashion via charity.

Me too! I agree, there's no aesthetically pleasing transition to implement; best you can do is reduce coverage in phases while returning appropriate amount of taxes to people, and just drop it all together when it's low enough. It will certainly shake up the industry, but it seems like the only way to get to a reasonable, liberty-respecting model. Besides, some turbulence is probably better than pretending everything's OK until the whole thing implodes I'd think.

Because you cannot just apply like that anytime . You only can join certain times and if you do not you cannot get the coverage until the next enrollment period. The last one was March 15th i think it was.. Unless you have a special situation like coming off work coverage. Or if you are in the Medicaid spot and they take that away because you make too much you would get a chance to change. So if something happens you are stuck paying the bill .

Sure, assuming you're not close enough to a qualifying event which are numerous enough it seems. But then you're back to square one, with people getting care, not being able to pay for it and leaving the costs to hospitals again, right?

[captrobey]

Me too! I agree, there's no aesthetically pleasing transition to implement; best you can do is reduce coverage in phases while returning appropriate amount of taxes to people, and just drop it all together when it's low enough. It will certainly shake up the industry, but it seems like the only way to get to a reasonable, liberty-respecting model. Besides, some turbulence is probably better than pretending everything's OK until the whole thing implodes I'd think.



Sure, assuming you're not close enough to a qualifying event which are numerous enough it seems. But then you're back to square one, with people getting care, not being able to pay for it and leaving the costs to hospitals again, right?

Depends what you feel is numerous. But yes you are right if you do not get a plan you are stuck with paying that bill.

Exchange Subsidy - People Under 65 the cut off this year was March 15th

PDP Drug Plans Medicare - Oct 15th - Dec 7th for Jan 1st effective date.

HMO Medicare - Oct 15th - Dec 7th For Jan 1st then again from Jan 1st to Feb 15th IF that HMO has drug coverage included. These are easy to get because coverage is not as great.

MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT - Can change anytime but must be able to pass Medical Questions and go through underwriting and there are a lot Medical questions. This is what most of my clients have and i will fight tooth and nail with anyone that says this is not the best coverage on Medicare hands down.