Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm tired of explaining over and over and over again the same concepts to uneducated people. You refute what I posted with opinions. Weak ones at that. When you're ready to post actual facts to backup any of the drivel you posted, let me know.
Pick one thing, I don't care, but post some facts. Trying to debate your obviously misinformed opinion is just not worth it.
You post opinions, and get upset when I counter them.
Insurers only routinely deny coverage based on a pre existing condition when it was not revealed before the policy is enacted. They actually get away with that because that is fraud.
Yes, there are exceptions to that, but they make the news because they are rare, not because they are common.
As for the caps on lifetime, and even annual, payouts, why would anyone think they are unreasonable? They are told about them when they buy the policy, and often choose those polices because the premiums are lower. Some people end up with unusual health problems, and end up exceeding their limits, and loosing coverage as a result. As I said before, I admit this is a problem, but it is also extremely rare because most people do not have the type of chronic conditions that require large medical coverage.
This law cannot possible save everyone money. That is simple economics that anyone should be able to comprehend. What this bill will do is save the people who need the most expensive coverage a few dollars by forcing everyone else to cover their expenses.
Facts I have in plenty, and the defenders of this law routinely ignore them because they prefer their version of reality. They, like you, prefer to class the real problems as nothing more than opinions.
Another post, more baseless opinions. I asked for you to provide ACTUAL proof not your opinion. What I did was post benefits directly from the bill, you countered with your opinion...which happens to be baseless and Waaaaaaaaay off. If you're not going to post something of substance, don't bother replying.
I do not believe this, I know this.
They did?
As for the clerical errors, do you really think this new law covers that? If so, you are even dumber than you think I am.
BCBSNC's premium refunds show the perils of ObamaCare - CharlotteObserver.com
I'm tired of explaining over and over and over again the same concepts to uneducated people. You refute what I posted with opinions. Weak ones at that. When you're ready to post actual facts to backup any of the drivel you posted, let me know.
Pick one thing, I don't care, but post some facts. Trying to debate your obviously misinformed opinion is just not worth it.
You post opinions, and get upset when I counter them.
Insurers only routinely deny coverage based on a pre existing condition when it was not revealed before the policy is enacted. They actually get away with that because that is fraud.
Yes, there are exceptions to that, but they make the news because they are rare, not because they are common.
As for the caps on lifetime, and even annual, payouts, why would anyone think they are unreasonable? They are told about them when they buy the policy, and often choose those polices because the premiums are lower. Some people end up with unusual health problems, and end up exceeding their limits, and loosing coverage as a result. As I said before, I admit this is a problem, but it is also extremely rare because most people do not have the type of chronic conditions that require large medical coverage.
This law cannot possible save everyone money. That is simple economics that anyone should be able to comprehend. What this bill will do is save the people who need the most expensive coverage a few dollars by forcing everyone else to cover their expenses.
Facts I have in plenty, and the defenders of this law routinely ignore them because they prefer their version of reality. They, like you, prefer to class the real problems as nothing more than opinions.
Another post, more baseless opinions. I asked for you to provide ACTUAL proof not your opinion. What I did was post benefits directly from the bill, you countered with your opinion...which happens to be baseless and Waaaaaaaaay off. If you're not going to post something of substance, don't bother replying.
I was only half right here. An older form of the bill had a blanket statement to limit healthcare insurance companies profits. The finalized bill under section 1334 a medical loss ratio must be established for multi state plans. So, in effect, if you are selling interstate the provision will not apply on the federal level but if you wish to sell your plan in more than one state then there will be limits placed on the amount of money you are able to charge as a percentage of the amount of money you are using to pay for medical expenses. As to your point, no I do not think this particular provision comes into effect until 2014.I have yet to see a law that puts a set limit on health insurance profits, let alone one that's been initiated. I recommend you reread the article I just sent. Yes, they are rising FASTER, and it should be no surprise that the article is entitled "Health Insurance Posts Record Profits" despite the recession, up by over 50%.but now they are rising FASTER. Far faster as a matter of fact and, if I am not mistaken, the bill limits the amount of profit that an insurance company is allowed to make as a percentage of their total expences. So, the original problem, the one Obama started this bill on, was to reduce costs and all we have seen is an increase in costs. That is a major problem
Very distinct possibility. What I fear though is that the restrictions will do nothing to ever lower the price. I have a feeling that healthcare is only starting this trend of increasing costs. I hope the new insurance 'shopping center' that is set up by this bill tempers this but I think the companies will find a way around it.Again, the facts appear to show that those increased premiums are being translated directly into profit. This comes as no surprise to me, as I've seen mild price gauging tactics before government restrictions before. Heck a few years back when gas prices were soaring look what happened when the government was threatening action: prices went up!
But I can respond rightWhile that point is true, fast food does not carry the same addictive properties as tobacco products. That being said, I think you're right in that we're not addressing the issue as well as we should.We banned tobacco advertising because we had proof that it was killing millions of people. Fast food is killing millions more; why are they any different than the tobacco companies?
That's true. And a solution to lower healthcare costs would be killing people over 30 years of age. I think what some people forget in this debate, and I'm not saying you are going to that kind of extreme, is that the COST to all of this can NOT just be measured in money. If a new healthcare policy costs more money and makes us all live happier healthier lives, that's not a bad thing. Cost still needs to be addressed, but we must always keep the goals of medicine in mind. Not saying that directly at you, FAQ2, just in general.
Why not? Why would that be a bad thing? Everyone may "know" it just like people know cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer. But it helps direct the issue.I have no problem with them printing the nutrional information, but I don't feel they should have to put warning stickers on a qtr. pounder box saying eating too many will cause high cholesterol.
The funny part is that this bill is doing that exact same thing is happening already: spreading the burden through taxes.Yes you can make the claim that people chose the wrong insurance, but at the end of the day, when they can't pay for themselves and go bankrupt, it's everyone else who is picking up the tab. We can similarly be without sympathy for people with no insurance, but it is your low sympathy that contributes to the problem: uninsured people raise our insurance rates.
Regarding the size of the bill: seriously, it doesn't matter. Yes, it's not ideal. It SHOULD be in simple language that everyone can understand and make reasonable and concise points. But it's not. So just debate the points it does make.
Uninsured people have no affect on our insurance rates because insurers do not pay for them. They do affect our taxes though, so if you want to discuss a way to alleviate that burden feel free.
I am not the one that is not debating the points it makes, you are, as I just demonstrated. The only reason I mentioned the size of the bill is to point out that it is not actually addressing the problem RDD identified, as it actually makes the status quo more pervasive than it already is.
I do not believe this, I know this.
Of course you do.
The private cost of a premium is not counted as a federal expenditure. Nor is out-of-pocket spending. Do you know why? Because those are not federal expenditures. They have no deficit impact. The portion of exchange premiums paid using affordability tax credits is a federal expenditure. It does impact the deficit.
Which is why "This bill was specifically written to prevent the CBO from factoring increased premiums into the deficit. is a bullshit statement. The tax credits are pegged to the value of the premium in the second actuarial tier; if premiums go up, federal expenditures go up. Which is why estimates of the ACA's impact on premium are built into the score. CBO even released multiple letters specifically walking lawmakers through its estimates of the impact on premiums.
If you want to talk about what I am saying you need to address the FACT that the CBO counted those private premiums against Hillarycare when it was up for debate, and that the new law was specifically written to avoid that same trap.
This is still false, as my citations have pointed out. It is commonplace to deny coverage for ALL pre-existing conditions, regardless of previous disclosure. These are not rare exceptions. Please read the articles. I can get you more if you'd like. On top of this, it is commonplace to deny ALL coverage from larger expenses when a previously undisclosed issue has risen, regardless of the insignificance.Insurers only routinely deny coverage based on a pre existing condition when it was not revealed before the policy is enacted. They actually get away with that because that is fraud.
And what is the point of an "exclusionary period?" Let's call it what it is.By the way, you, being a doctor, should know the difference between an exclusionary period and charging higher premiums to cover higher expenses and out right denial of coverage.
What?They do not drop patients because they do not have patients. They do, however, have customers, and contracts with those customers. Would you expect your car insurance to cover expenses if your home burned down? Or maybe your home insurance cover you if you get hurt at work.
Are you reading the articles that are being presented by people in this thread?As for the clerical errors, do you really think this new law covers that? If so, you are even dumber than you think I am.
You clearly don't understand the current healthcare system. Do you think doctors and hospitals just take the cost hit when uninsured people don't pay? No. The price gets passed on to everyone else, including uninsured people who do pay, and insured patients as well. Again, this is the well known economics principle found in countless industries.Uninsured people have no affect on our insurance rates because insurers do not pay for them. They do affect our taxes though, so if you want to discuss a way to alleviate that burden feel free.
What service do you feel health insurance companies provide for Americans? What do you think you're actually purchasing? Now contrast to what doctors and hospitals provide to Americans. Note the vast differences.Why do we need to restrict health insurance profits? Just how much profit do you think they should make over and above their expenses? Should we also restrict the profits of doctors and hospitals?
We've already established that the increase in health insurance costs are correlated to health insurance profits. Why do you continue to make this point as if it's due to the policy reform and not a result of corporate greed? Did you not catch it the first time or are you just willfully ignorant?Actual proof of what? That health care premiums are going up as a result of the new law?
We've already established that the increase in health insurance costs are correlated to health insurance profits. Why do you continue to make this point as if it's due to the policy reform and not a result of corporate greed? Did you not catch it the first time or are you just willfully ignorant?
This post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...hcare-debate-at-the-moment-4.html#post3298527We've already established that the increase in health insurance costs are correlated to health insurance profits. Why do you continue to make this point as if it's due to the policy reform and not a result of corporate greed? Did you not catch it the first time or are you just willfully ignorant?
We have? When did we establish this? I do not even remember talking about it, never mind finding a correlation.
This post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...hcare-debate-at-the-moment-4.html#post3298527We've already established that the increase in health insurance costs are correlated to health insurance profits. Why do you continue to make this point as if it's due to the policy reform and not a result of corporate greed? Did you not catch it the first time or are you just willfully ignorant?
We have? When did we establish this? I do not even remember talking about it, never mind finding a correlation.
Or you can just go here: Health Insurers Post Record Profits - ABC News
If you want to talk about what I am saying you need to address the FACT that the CBO counted those private premiums against Hillarycare when it was up for debate, and that the new law was specifically written to avoid that same trap.
There weren't "private premiums" under the 1994 proposal, that's the point. Under that plan, premiums (from employers and household) were paid to a government agency or non-profit acting under the authority of the government, not to a private insurer. The government agency then reimbursed payers with which it contracted as necessary. That means all of the money flowing to insurers was coming through regional government agencies, not in the form of private payments directly from individuals. That's why those funds were counted by CBO as government expenditures--all the money passed through a government agency.
I'm sure this seems like a grand trick to you but the reason this isn't true of the ACA score is that the ACA doesn't do this. "It was written to avoid that trap" is another way of saying "the ACA implements an entirely different system." This is not the same plan and, shockingly, its implications for the federal budget are not the same.
The one comparable bit is that the level of federal subsidies is dependent on premium levels in both the '94 proposal and the ACA. And both scores thus contain estimates of what premiums (and thus the subsidies) will be. Premium levels are considered in both scores.
If you want to talk about what I am saying you need to address the FACT that the CBO counted those private premiums against Hillarycare when it was up for debate, and that the new law was specifically written to avoid that same trap.
There weren't "private premiums" under the 1994 proposal, that's the point. Under that plan, premiums (from employers and household) were paid to a government agency or non-profit acting under the authority of the government, not to a private insurer. The government agency then reimbursed payers with which it contracted as necessary. That means all of the money flowing to insurers was coming through regional government agencies, not in the form of private payments directly from individuals. That's why those funds were counted by CBO as government expenditures--all the money passed through a government agency.
I'm sure this seems like a grand trick to you but the reason this isn't true of the ACA score is that the ACA doesn't do this. "It was written to avoid that trap" is another way of saying "the ACA implements an entirely different system." This is not the same plan and, shockingly, its implications for the federal budget are not the same.
The one comparable bit is that the level of federal subsidies is dependent on premium levels in both the '94 proposal and the ACA. And both scores thus contain estimates of what premiums (and thus the subsidies) will be. Premium levels are considered in both scores.
Sigh.
There were private premiums, and they were counted against the bill. The entire test of the bill is actually available online.
Bill Text - 103rd Congress (1993-1994) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
That is why the mandate is specifically not defined as a tax in the PPACA, so that the CBO, as required by law, will ignore its cost.
Obamacare was specifically written to avoid the pitfalls of Hillarycare. You can posture all day long, it will not change the facts.
Ok. I already said I can't understand all of the bill. Apparently I'm no smarter than your dem. leaders. pelosi admitted she hasn't a clue what all is in it...reid did too...THEY said so themselves...
but YOU got it all down...ok.right..whatever.
You haven't answered one single question I asked you in the previous posts..you've deflected and dodged every time. That was enough of an "answer", though. I learned something.
The U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence cover 6 pages roughly.
The entire legal foundations of this government. 6 pages
2000 pages for the health care bill...and no one (except you) has admitted that they completely understand it...not even the people who wrote the damned thing....whatever...
Like I said, through many years of experience having to live with the results of their "efforts" in my behalf, I've learned not to trust politicians.
You probably will too, eventually.
We get it, you don't like to read. Maybe they should make this bill in to a movie, that way you can better understand it. But then you'll probably just complain that it's longer than 2 hours and if they can make "Ernest goes to Camp" in less then 2 hours, then all movies worth a damn should do the same. Am I right?
wow...
From dodging every question to changing the subject you've finally managed to completely abandon even mentioning the topic at all.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it.
I am not going to argue with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.
I have already asked pages ago to give us a point by point evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of this 2000 page document. and share with us your one of a kind insight on the bill.
You continuously evade and dodge because you don't really know, yet INSIST that you have a unique understanding of the bill while offering nothing of substance.
If you did not understand me just now, go back and re-read, and if you still do not understand, then you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should go elsewhere, good day sir.
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health care costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
By Aleksandra Kulczuga — The Daily Caller
Like the bill that President Obama signed on Sunday, the 2006 Massachusetts plan was sold to voters on the now-familiar promise that it would reduce costs and lower unnecessary emergency room visits. That’s not what happened.
Read more: Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.
Even more striking, the 2006 law has done little to ease the burden on emergency rooms, a central goal of all heath care reform plans. A report by the Boston Globe found that in the first two years of the program, the state’s ER costs actually rose by 17 percent. “They said that ER visits would drop by 75 percent, and it hasn’t been even close to that,” said State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is currently running for governor as an Independent.
Massachusetts health program, model for Obama's reform, strains state budget
Massachusetts health program, model for Obama’s reform, strains state budget | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
By Peter Suderman
In 2006, the state of Massachusetts passed a sweeping overhaul of the state’s health-care system. The system, which influenced the Obama administration’s plans for national reform, has since faced unexpected and unchecked growth in costs, both to the government and individuals, forcing the government to cut benefits and raise taxes. Now analysts say that without significant policy changes, the program’s long-term viability is in doubt.
Firms cancel health coverage
With cost rising, small companies turning to state
Firms cancel health coverage - The Boston Globe
By Kay Lazar — Boston Globe Staff / July 18, 2010
The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.
In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
By KEVIN SACK — New York Times
AMHERST, Mass. — Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.
Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.
Article was published: Published: April 5, 2008
but now they are rising FASTER. Far faster as a matter of fact and, if I am not mistaken, the bill limits the amount of profit that an insurance company is allowed to make as a percentage of their total expences. So, the original problem, the one Obama started this bill on, was to reduce costs and all we have seen is an increase in costs. That is a major problemThe premiums WERE rising, before and after. This is nothing new. The real question is WHY they are rising. Is it due to increased spending requiring increased income? Or is it that profits for those companies are just rising.
Health Insurers Post Record Profits - ABC News
Looks like the latter.
Get used to it. RDD_1210 talks a good talk about how great this new Health care law will be for the country. Now I'm sure everyone here would all agree, that the state of Massachusetts has the closest example of this "government" solution to Health Care. So would it not make sense to look at how such a system has effected the state of Massachusetts, which many Democrats have viewed as being the "model" of the country? After all, isn't this "reduction of costs" ( BOASTED by many Democrat supporters ) the central issue behind this new bill? Will a National Government controlled Health care system, ACTUALLY be an improvement over the old? What does Massachusetts show us about the "quality" of care? Did it improve when the government controlled the strings?
Health care spending in Massachusetts is influenced by the state’s unique market structure. With four medical schools and six academic health centers (AHCs), in a state with six million residents, Massachusetts has one of the largest concentrations of academic medicine in the country.2 A decade ago the prevailing theory was that managed care would draw patients away from more costly teaching hospitals, but AHCs in Massachusetts have actually gained market share. This creates vexing questions for policymakers: first, whether the potential benefits of a concentrated academic medical infrastructure—quality of care, economic development, or academic missions—justify higher health care spending; second, whether market competition will promote appropriate use of community-based health resources; and finally, whether academic systems will be able to develop comparative advantages in health care informatics and chronic disease management that could slow long-run health care spending growth while improving quality.
In January 2009 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts launched a new payment arrangement called the Alternative Quality Contract. The contract stipulates a modified global payment (fixed payments for the care of a patient during a specified time period) arrangement. The model differs from past models of fixed payments or capitation because it explicitly connects payments to achieving quality goals and defines the rate of increase for each contract group’s budget over a five-year period, unlike typical annual contracts. All groups participating in the Alternative Quality Contract earned significant quality bonuses in the first year. This arrangement exemplifies the type of experimentation encouraged by the Affordable Care Act. We describe this unique contract and show how it surmounts hurdles previously encountered with other global-payment models.
Partners planning reduction of costs
Health care president stresses affordability
By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / November 1, 2010
The state’s largest health care system says it will redesign care for thousands of patients and reduce administrative costs as part of a major new initiative intended in part to make treatment at its teaching hospitals more affordable.
Partners HealthCare, a physician and hospital organization that includes Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals, also plans to launch a “public education campaign’’ early next year to improve its image, which has taken a pounding this year in the debate over soaring health care costs.
Dr. Gary Gottlieb, Partners’ president, has been introducing the initiative in a speech called “The Case for Change’’ to board members, executives and physician leaders at the organization’s nine hospitals. He has told managers that Partners needs to go more on the offensive in telling its story, and to figure out “when it’s right’’ to use care and “not just be driven by the transaction and demand for care in a given moment.’’ [...]
As are other providers, Partners is under pressure to prepare for a new payment system that will essentially put doctors and hospitals on a budget, said Dr. Thomas Lee, head of Partners’ physician organization.
Over the next few years, insurers and government programs are expected to start paying providers a flat fee for treating a patient for a particular episode, or for caring for a patient during a particular time period — rather than paying for each test, procedure, and appointment.
ABC news is bad reporting? They seem to have gotten their facts directly from the companies released profit reports. What part of direct facts from the companies makes this bad reporting? That's a silly hand-waiving excuse. These are the "actual facts" you want: Every dollar the private insurance sector takes in can only go to one of two places: healthcare, or their pockets. You say the industry is taking in more dollars, and I can show you proof that their pockets are getting heavier, up to 91% heavier. Now you still want to tell me that insurance premiums are increasing because of the OTHER possible avenue for that money when we already have irrefutable proof we know it's going into their pockets?Again, where do I say anything about about a correlation? All I see is a correlation between bad reporting and your refusal to discuss actual facts. I actually know there is no actual relationship between these two things though, so don't bother pointing that out to me.
Sigh.
There were private premiums, and they were counted against the bill. The entire test of the bill is actually available online.
Bill Text - 103rd Congress (1993-1994) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
You're misinformed. The controversy over the '94 score--whether or not to include most money ultimately going to private insurers in calculations of federal revenues and expenditures--was not whether a premium should be counted as public or private, which seems to be the issue on your mind in this thread. The controversy was whether money flowing through regional alliances should be counted as federal revenues and expenditures. Regional alliances would technically not have been federal entities, they were regional governmental authorities, so the Clinton administration argued the answer was no. CBO decided that since they were effectively agents of the federal government, that flow of money should be included in the federal budget.
This has nothing to do with the mandate in the ACA. To repeat: under the '94 proposal, your "premiums" were in fact payments made to a government agency. You wouldn't pay a private insurer for insurance products provided, the government agency you're funding would decide how much to pay it on your behalf based on a number of factors. The concept is not entirely dissimilar from the way Medicaid works right now in most jurisdictions--a state agency pools federal and state (tax) revenues, it lets it enrollees choose a private insurance company (i.e. a managed care organization), and then it generally pays to that insurer a risk-adjusted capitated rate for each enrollee.
Again, and no worries I don't really expect you to get this, this is not how the ACA works. Under the ACA, you buy insurance and pay a premium directly to your chosen insurer just like right now. It remains an entirely private transaction. The difference from now is that you if you're buying in the individual market you become eligible for a tax credit based on that purchase. That's very much how employer-sponsored coverage works now, except the tax credit is refundable, advanceable, and valued differently than the tax exemption for employer-sponsored plans. Your premiums are not government expenditures. That has nothing to do with the mandate, it had to do with the fact that they don't ever go through a government agency (which was not the case in the '94 proposal). CBO estimates government expenditures (and generally partners with JCT to get revenue figures). But yes, the revenues raised by the mandate were estimated, as were the revenues raised by the provisions specifically labeled as taxes. The effects of the legislation were projected, the labels chosen for political reasons are irrelevant to the outcome.
If you want national spending (public + private) projections, try the CMS Actuary.
To assist the Budget Committees and the Congress with enforcement of the budget resolution, CBO analyzes the spending or revenue effects of specific legislative proposals. (For proposals that would amend the Internal Revenue Code, CBO is required by law to use estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation.) It prepares cost estimates of pending legislation and tracks the progress of such legislation in a scorekeeping system. CBO's cost estimates and scorekeeping system show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law and help to determine whether those budget effects are consistent with the targets in the Congress's most recent budget resolution. As required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, CBO includes in cost estimates an assessment of whether legislation contains federal mandates and provides an estimate of the costs imposed by those mandates on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
ABC news is bad reporting? They seem to have gotten their facts directly from the companies released profit reports. What part of direct facts from the companies makes this bad reporting? That's a silly hand-waiving excuse. These are the "actual facts" you want: Every dollar the private insurance sector takes in can only go to one of two places: healthcare, or their pockets. You say the industry is taking in more dollars, and I can show you proof that their pockets are getting heavier, up to 91% heavier. Now you still want to tell me that insurance premiums are increasing because of the OTHER possible avenue for that money when we already have irrefutable proof we know it's going into their pockets?Again, where do I say anything about about a correlation? All I see is a correlation between bad reporting and your refusal to discuss actual facts. I actually know there is no actual relationship between these two things though, so don't bother pointing that out to me.
