Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?

[ladyliberal]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

Well, some aspects of the ACA have been implemented, and some genuinely couldn't be implemented immediately for practical reasons. However, there are many aspects which were delayed for political reasons. I don't think those reasons were because Obama felt they would cost him reelection. I think that they were delayed so that the scoring would indicate (somewhat misleadingly) a politically acceptable accounting cost. I think this was necessary to get enough votes to pass it, particularly through a Republican filibuster.

I'm also a bit skeptical that cost saving would necessarily be politically popular. A number of measures that reduce government expenditures (Obama's shift of Medicare funds, Ryan's budget) have proven quite unpopular politically.

 

[ladyliberal]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

If you study all the facts, it is going to save money over time. The right has put out so much misinformation I'm willing to bet you are repeating lies that the right told you about Obamacare.

And if you want to go back to the drawing board and give us what we really wanted, which was single payer nationalized universal healthcare, then we are more than willing to take you up on that.

But instead the right and the healthcare lobbyists obstructed that and they ended up writing the bill. Just like they wrote Romneycare.

It solves some problems, but isn't good enough.

And don't complain about rising healthcare costs now. Its why we passed healthcare reform in the first place. You defended the healthcare giants. You said in a free market they could charge whatever they wanted. So what 10 million people now can't afford insurance. Or were denied because of pre existing conditions.

Now you want to blame Obamacare for the rising costs? What a hoot. The costs went up 200% under Bush and you said NOTHING!

I thought you guys would be happy that Obamacare is good for the healtcare giants. They love the mandate. It will make them richer than ever.

I got a sucker.

Tell me something, how is requiring all insurance to cover contraceptive methods and counseling, well women visits, gestational diabetes screening, STD counseling, HOV testing, HIV testing and screening, breastfeeding support, and screening and counseling for intrapersonal and domestic violence counseling going to save money? Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected expenses, not routine ones. Covering routine ones drives up the costs for everyone.

I would also point out that what I am talking about is what Obama just put into it, not the rest of the stuff he put in before.

Your last sentence is an important distinction. I think many people in reading your original post's reference to "Obamacare" assumed that you were talking about the ACA.

As to your objections to routine health care being covered through insurance, I really don't think we need separate systems for emergency and routine health care. Routine care is certainly important: for an accessible explanation of how routine care can reduce costs by reducing the need for expensive emergency care, see Lower Costs and Better Care for Neediest Patients : The New Yorker. To address one of the particular areas you inquire about, consider the studies on cost-saving from contraception referenced in: http://www.cluw.org/PDF/ContraceptiveCoverageSavesMoney.pdf

 

[francoHFW]

4% is a heluva lot better than 15% like under Boooosh. By 2015 you morons will LOVE Obamacare- and figure out Pubs/Fox/Rush are lying scumbags...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked.

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows | EON: Enhanced Online News

Going up is not the same as going down.

It's certainly not. And indeed, Obama has been pretty careful to distinguish between the two. As far as I can tell, he has not claimed that under the ACA overall medical costs would drop below what they are now. Take his 2009 speech to the AMA (Remarks by the President to the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association | The White House) where he mentioned costs 49 times, saying for example:

- we need to "control [not reduce] the spiraling cost of health care"

- "the cost of inaction is greater"

- we ought to "curb [i.e. restrain, rather than reduce] costs"

- "we seek to contain the cost of health care"

- it is good to "cut health care spending... relative to what it would have been"

The Obama administration has claimed, more than once, that the PPACA would reduce costs. There are various prvisions written into the bill that were actually sold on the premise that they would reduce the deficit. That position is so absurd that the administration has started talking about access instead of costs. Go read everything they touted about the new coverage and how it will increase access to all sorts of shiny toys.

No one that knows anything thinks this is gong to reduce, or even slow the increase of, costs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

16 July 1798 by President John Adams. The Act required the Department of the Treasury to "provide for the relief and maintenance of disabled seamen." This Act led to the formation of several hospitals at sea and river ports all across the United States, which was officially the Marine-Hospital Fund. The Act specified the revenue for the Hospital Fund to come from the merchant seamen. Merchant seamen that used the early hospital fund hospitals were charged "20 cents per month." This series of hospitals to care for merchant seamen was based on the British practice of establishing hospitals to care for sailors and merchant seamen.

This was the first MANDATORY health care act.

They used leaches a lot back then, and doctors routinely killed patients because they didn't know anything about germs. If mandatory health care is such a great idea maybe we should go back to everything else they did.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Obamacare is all about cutting costs!

Yeah, I'm drunk and will believe anything. So what?

 

[ladyliberal]

The Obama administration has claimed, more than once, that the PPACA would reduce costs. There are various prvisions written into the bill that were actually sold on the premise that they would reduce the deficit. That position is so absurd that the administration has started talking about access instead of costs. Go read everything they touted about the new coverage and how it will increase access to all sorts of shiny toys.

No one that knows anything thinks this is gong to reduce, or even slow the increase of, costs.

Could you produce a quote in which the administration said that ACA would reduce costs below what they are now? I'm sure they did say that certain provisions would reduce costs (and they will) but I don't recall anyone saying that under ACA health care costs would fall below what they were when ACA passed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you study all the facts, it is going to save money over time. The right has put out so much misinformation I'm willing to bet you are repeating lies that the right told you about Obamacare.

And if you want to go back to the drawing board and give us what we really wanted, which was single payer nationalized universal healthcare, then we are more than willing to take you up on that.

But instead the right and the healthcare lobbyists obstructed that and they ended up writing the bill. Just like they wrote Romneycare.

It solves some problems, but isn't good enough.

And don't complain about rising healthcare costs now. Its why we passed healthcare reform in the first place. You defended the healthcare giants. You said in a free market they could charge whatever they wanted. So what 10 million people now can't afford insurance. Or were denied because of pre existing conditions.

Now you want to blame Obamacare for the rising costs? What a hoot. The costs went up 200% under Bush and you said NOTHING!

I thought you guys would be happy that Obamacare is good for the healtcare giants. They love the mandate. It will make them richer than ever.

I got a sucker.

Tell me something, how is requiring all insurance to cover contraceptive methods and counseling, well women visits, gestational diabetes screening, STD counseling, HOV testing, HIV testing and screening, breastfeeding support, and screening and counseling for intrapersonal and domestic violence counseling going to save money? Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected expenses, not routine ones. Covering routine ones drives up the costs for everyone.

I would also point out that what I am talking about is what Obama just put into it, not the rest of the stuff he put in before.

Your last sentence is an important distinction. I think many people in reading your original post's reference to "Obamacare" assumed that you were talking about the ACA.

As to your objections to routine health care being covered through insurance, I really don't think we need separate systems for emergency and routine health care. Routine care is certainly important: for an accessible explanation of how routine care can reduce costs by reducing the need for expensive emergency care, see Lower Costs and Better Care for Neediest Patients : The New Yorker. To address one of the particular areas you inquire about, consider the studies on cost-saving from contraception referenced in: http://www.cluw.org/PDF/ContraceptiveCoverageSavesMoney.pdf

I am actually talking about the PPACA, aka Obamacare, which is the justification for the new rules on insurance.

Do you use the same system for routine car maintenance and accident coverage? Insurance is designed to cover unexpected expenses, forcing it to cover routine expenses does not reduce cost, it does the opposite. With contraception now paid for by everyone, even the half of the population that does not use it, there will be no incentive to reduce cost, or to develop an effective birth control for men. Personally, I think the latter should have every feminist in the country up in arms protesting the patriarchal system forcing women to forever be responsible for something that should be entirely on men. That is what feminists used to say in the old days, before they were corrupted the system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

4% is a heluva lot better than 15% like under Boooosh. By 2015 you morons will LOVE Obamacare- and figure out Pubs/Fox/Rush are lying scumbags...

I will never love Obamacare, do not listen to politicians, watch Fox, or listen to the radio. I do not even have a radio.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Obama administration has claimed, more than once, that the PPACA would reduce costs. There are various prvisions written into the bill that were actually sold on the premise that they would reduce the deficit. That position is so absurd that the administration has started talking about access instead of costs. Go read everything they touted about the new coverage and how it will increase access to all sorts of shiny toys.

No one that knows anything thinks this is gong to reduce, or even slow the increase of, costs.

Could you produce a quote in which the administration said that ACA would reduce costs below what they are now? I'm sure they did say that certain provisions would reduce costs (and they will) but I don't recall anyone saying that under ACA health care costs would fall below what they were when ACA passed.

Seriously? Here is a report from HHS that claims the average family will save over $14,000 a year. I know that this is not techinically a quote, but I think it makes my point.

http://www.healthcare.gov/center/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf

 

[francoHFW]

Routine care is preventive care, which IS the cost saver. Dimwit dittoheads!! ty

 

[ladyliberal]

Do you use the same system for routine car maintenance and accident coverage? Insurance is designed to cover unexpected expenses, forcing it to cover routine expenses does not reduce cost, it does the opposite. With contraception now paid for by everyone, even the half of the population that does not use it, there will be no incentive to reduce cost, or to develop an effective birth control for men. Personally, I think the latter should have every feminist in the country up in arms protesting the patriarchal system forcing women to forever be responsible for something that should be entirely on men. That is what feminists used to say in the old days, before they were corrupted the system.

I understand your point about the word "insurance" often referring to a method of dealing with unusual rather than routine expenses. However, still don't understand why you seem to feel that having the same system deal with both is necessarily a bad thing. You also seem to feel that expanding routine coverage necessarily drives up costs. As my references argue, however, it can instead decrease them dramatically by reducing the need for more costly treatments later.

I believe that you are drastically understating the usage of contraception. Given that both men and women have an interest (financial as well as personal) one could say that men make use of contraceptives just as much as women do. I believe you are misstating the feminist position-- my understanding is that mainstream feminists hailed the advent of the (female) birth control pill and believe that contraception should be a shared responsibility (as opposed to "entirely on men").

Saying that feminists should try to make it more difficult for women to obtain contraceptives in order to encourage development of a male birth control pill (there are already other contraceptive methods available to men, both devices and surgeries) seems rather silly. It seems much like the counter-feminist argument that it's bad for women to work because it discourages men from providing for them. Giving women control over their own lives rather than relying on men to take care of them is a core tenet of feminism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Routine care is preventive care, which IS the cost saver. Dimwit dittoheads!! ty

Do you have any studies that actually back that up, or do you think it sounds so good it doesn't need proof?

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in February of 2008 that concluded that preventative care is not cost effective. I guess that means I can provide evidence to back up my claim that covering routine expenses is not a good idea.

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4
The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.

MMS: Error

 

[ladyliberal]

Seriously? Here is a report from HHS that claims the average family will save over $14,000 a year. I know that this is not techinically a quote, but I think it makes my point.

http://www.healthcare.gov/center/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf

I'm quite serious, and thank you for the link. It certainly seems to be on-point. However, I'm not sure how it supports your position. At first glance it seems to support mine instead:

- "The implementation of the Affordable Care Act has coincided with a significant slow-down in health spending growth"

- A section called "Health Insurance Premiums Would be Higher Without Health Reform"

- "Preliminary evidence suggests that rate increases for 2011 may be lower than in
previous years"

- "In 2014, annual premiums are projected to fall compared to what they would have been without the Affordable Care Act."

In short, it seems clear that the document is indicating that health costs will be lower than they would without the ACA, but that the costs are not expected to actually decrease below what they are now.

One section, "Immediate policies to lower premiums" might seem at first glance to indicate otherwise. However, it seems clear on reading it that here "lower" means that the premiums will be lower than they would be without the policies, not that premiums for most Americans will fall immediately. Furthermore, premiums are not the same as costs-- they are more like prices, which are quite different. A government health system could for example have zero premiums but huge costs.

 

[ladyliberal]

Routine care is preventive care, which IS the cost saver. Dimwit dittoheads!! ty

Do you have any studies that actually back that up, or do you think it sounds so good it doesn't need proof?

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in February of 2008 that concluded that preventative care is not cost effective. I guess that means I can provide evidence to back up my claim that covering routine expenses is not a good idea.

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4
The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.

MMS: Error

Actually, your own source is one such study (or meta-study):

- "some measures... reduce mortality either at low cost or at a cost savings"

- "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money..."

- Most importantly, the study found that more preventative than non-preventative treatments identified in the literature were actually cost-saving.

The article makes two points on the other side: Some politicians have overstated the benefits of preventative medicine, and preventative medicine is not always cost-effective. I would not dispute either.

 

[HUGGY]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?


The Affordable Healthcare Bill was not about costs. It was about putting the health care insurance industry on notice.

It was about letting the players expose thier hands.

This was the first time that Health care was looked at seriously and it was a shot accross the bow and seeing who took what side.

The American Public wants single payer with a 70% approval.

The corporate owned media ...ya you know ..the one that runs hard on pills 24/7 had the upper hand in the first round but now Obama knows the lay of the land.

If the Dems get a turnaround on the seats in the House and a couple more in the Senate Obama won't make the same mistake trusting in the DINOs like Baucus and he will get his own team picked for the second half.

The rise in health care premiums will not play against Obama. It will be used to drive the corporate puppets of both parties to some stunning defeats in November.

The PEOPLE want comprehensive health care..they will get it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you use the same system for routine car maintenance and accident coverage? Insurance is designed to cover unexpected expenses, forcing it to cover routine expenses does not reduce cost, it does the opposite. With contraception now paid for by everyone, even the half of the population that does not use it, there will be no incentive to reduce cost, or to develop an effective birth control for men. Personally, I think the latter should have every feminist in the country up in arms protesting the patriarchal system forcing women to forever be responsible for something that should be entirely on men. That is what feminists used to say in the old days, before they were corrupted the system.

I understand your point about the word "insurance" often referring to a method of dealing with unusual rather than routine expenses. However, still don't understand why you seem to feel that having the same system deal with both is necessarily a bad thing. You also seem to feel that expanding routine coverage necessarily drives up costs. As my references argue, however, it can instead decrease them dramatically by reducing the need for more costly treatments later.

I believe that you are drastically understating the usage of contraception. Given that both men and women have an interest (financial as well as personal) one could say that men make use of contraceptives just as much as women do. I believe you are misstating the feminist position-- my understanding is that mainstream feminists hailed the advent of the (female) birth control pill and believe that contraception should be a shared responsibility (as opposed to "entirely on men").

Saying that feminists should try to make it more difficult for women to obtain contraceptives in order to encourage development of a male birth control pill (there are already other contraceptive methods available to men, both devices and surgeries) seems rather silly. It seems much like the counter-feminist argument that it's bad for women to work because it discourages men from providing for them. Giving women control over their own lives rather than relying on men to take care of them is a core tenet of feminism.

Because it will increase the cost, there is no way it cannot. Let me give you an example.

I don't know what it actually costs to buy birth control pills So I will just make some numbers up. Let us say it costs $45 a month to buy contraceptives, that is about $540 a year. You decide you prefer to pay the insurance company for this, and let them pay the pharmacy. They are willing to do this, but they need to pay their staff, and make a profit for their stockholders, which happens to be the pension fund you are relying on to fund your retirement so you really do not want them to go broke. They end up charging you $49.50 bucks a month, but it really helps a lot of people (you are not the only one invested in that pension fund) so you go for it. This directly increase your cost by 10%, another $54 dollars a year.

By the way, forcing more people to pay for contraceptives, even if they do not need them, does not reduce the costs, it just spreads it out. If the insurance company can get 9 people to pay for something that only one person uses the cost for each person only goes up by $0.50 (that pension fund can use that extra $0.005) but the overall cost still goes up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously? Here is a report from HHS that claims the average family will save over $14,000 a year. I know that this is not techinically a quote, but I think it makes my point.

http://www.healthcare.gov/center/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf

I'm quite serious, and thank you for the link. It certainly seems to be on-point. However, I'm not sure how it supports your position. At first glance it seems to support mine instead:

- "The implementation of the Affordable Care Act has coincided with a significant slow-down in health spending growth"

- A section called "Health Insurance Premiums Would be Higher Without Health Reform"

- "Preliminary evidence suggests that rate increases for 2011 may be lower than in
previous years"

- "In 2014, annual premiums are projected to fall compared to what they would have been without the Affordable Care Act."

In short, it seems clear that the document is indicating that health costs will be lower than they would without the ACA, but that the costs are not expected to actually decrease below what they are now.

One section, "Immediate policies to lower premiums" might seem at first glance to indicate otherwise. However, it seems clear on reading it that here "lower" means that the premiums will be lower than they would be without the policies, not that premiums for most Americans will fall immediately. Furthermore, premiums are not the same as costs-- they are more like prices, which are quite different. A government health system could for example have zero premiums but huge costs.

In 2014 annual premiums are expected to fall compared to what they would have been without the Affordable Care Act.

One of us is really confused about what those words mean. The entire report is claiming that premiums will be lower.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Routine care is preventive care, which IS the cost saver. Dimwit dittoheads!! ty

Do you have any studies that actually back that up, or do you think it sounds so good it doesn't need proof?

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in February of 2008 that concluded that preventative care is not cost effective. I guess that means I can provide evidence to back up my claim that covering routine expenses is not a good idea.

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4
The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.

MMS: Error

Actually, your own source is one such study (or meta-study):

- "some measures... reduce mortality either at low cost or at a cost savings"

- "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money..."

- Most importantly, the study found that more preventative than non-preventative treatments identified in the literature were actually cost-saving.

The article makes two points on the other side: Some politicians have overstated the benefits of preventative medicine, and preventative medicine is not always cost-effective. I would not dispute either.

The "care" that reduces cost is mostly stuff like getting people to quit smoking and eat better. That is much easier to accomplish if there is financial reward for changing behavior.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?


The Affordable Healthcare Bill was not about costs. It was about putting the health care insurance industry on notice.

It was about letting the players expose thier hands.

This was the first time that Health care was looked at seriously and it was a shot accross the bow and seeing who took what side.

The American Public wants single payer with a 70% approval.

The corporate owned media ...ya you know ..the one that runs hard on pills 24/7 had the upper hand in the first round but now Obama knows the lay of the land.

If the Dems get a turnaround on the seats in the House and a couple more in the Senate Obama won't make the same mistake trusting in the DINOs like Baucus and he will get his own team picked for the second half.

The rise in health care premiums will not play against Obama. It will be used to drive the corporate puppets of both parties to some stunning defeats in November.

The PEOPLE want comprehensive health care..they will get it.

Somebody has to pay for it, and that will be the middle class, no one else has enough money.