Health care cost to exceed 25k in 2016

[dblack]

Facts show that the reform has so far been more or less successful in achieving those goals and has moved us in the right direction.

I'm not going to play the citation game with you. Health insurance is more expensive, for what you get. And so is healthcare. There's no complicated math involved and no need for all the spin. But I'm sure you'll spin anyway, because the most important goal of healthcare reform is to centralize control under corporatist government.

 

[AntonToo]

Facts show that the reform has so far been more or less successful in achieving those goals and has moved us in the right direction.

I'm not going to play the citation game with you. Health insurance is more expensive, for what you get. And so is healthcare. There's no complicated math involved and no need for all the spin. But I'm sure you'll spin anyway, because the most important goal of healthcare reform is to centralize control under corporatist government.

So what you are saying is I should just take your surely un-biased word for it and ignore objective data - right?

 

[dblack]

Facts show that the reform has so far been more or less successful in achieving those goals and has moved us in the right direction.

I'm not going to play the citation game with you. Health insurance is more expensive, for what you get. And so is healthcare. There's no complicated math involved and no need for all the spin. But I'm sure you'll spin anyway, because the most important goal of healthcare reform is to centralize control under corporatist government.

So what you are saying is I should just take your surely un-biased word for it and ignore objective data - right?

What I'm saying is that your objective data isn't and you really don't care. Neither do I. At the end of the day, you favor authoritarian control and I don't.

 

[AntonToo]

What I'm saying is that your objective data isn't and you really don't care. Neither do I.

You saying something doesn't make it so. A lot of people say a lot of things, should I believe them all?

I've looked into this and didn't find any extraordinary cost growth. I can even show you what I found, so you can review it for yourself. You unfortunately can't, probably because you believe things for bad reasons.

At the end of the day, you favor authoritarian control and I don't.

Nuh, you just like to make things up.

 

[dblack]

What I'm saying is that your objective data isn't and you really don't care. Neither do I.

You saying something doesn't make it so. A lot of people say a lot of things, should I believe them all?

I've looked into this and didn't find any extraordinary cost growth. I can even show you what I found, so you can review it for yourself:

At the end of the day, you favor authoritarian control and I don't.

Nuh, you just like to make things up.

Does the average annual premium calculation take into account the radical increase in deductibles?

....

These polices cost more and are worth less. But again, does it really matter? If I could convince you that ACA has made health insurance, and/or healthcare more expensive, would it change your mind? Or would you rationalize it away as a 'step in the right direction'?

It wouldn't matter or for me if the opposite were true - ie if you could prove to me that giving government complete control over healthcare would make it cheaper and more available, I would still be opposed to it.

 

[AntonToo]

Does the average annual premium calculation take into account the radical increase in deductibles?
....
These polices cost more and are worth less. But again, does it really matter? If I could convince you that ACA has made health insurance, and/or healthcare more expensive, would it change your mind? Or would you rationalize it away as a 'step in the right direction'?

It wouldn't matter or for me if the opposite were true - ie if you could prove to me that giving government complete control over healthcare would make it cheaper and more available, I would still be opposed to it.

Yes, facts matter if that's what you are asking me. In light of sufficient evidence I would have no problem changing my mind about Obamacare. Why would I?

You keep asserting stuff without being able to point to some sort of basis for your beliefs - that certainly will never change anyone's mind.

 

[dblack]

Does the average annual premium calculation take into account the radical increase in deductibles?
....
These polices cost more and are worth less. But again, does it really matter? If I could convince you that ACA has made health insurance, and/or healthcare more expensive, would it change your mind? Or would you rationalize it away as a 'step in the right direction'?

It wouldn't matter or for me if the opposite were true - ie if you could prove to me that giving government complete control over healthcare would make it cheaper and more available, I would still be opposed to it.

Yes, facts matter if that's what you are asking me. In light of sufficient evidence I would have no problem changing my mind about Obamacare. Why would I?

You keep asserting stuff without being able to point to some sort of basis for your beliefs - that certainly will never change anyone's mind.

Then why won't you address the fact that today's policies have much higher deductibles, and that comparing them with previous plans that had much lower deductibles provides no information?

 

[AntonToo]

Then why won't you address the fact that today's policies have much higher deductibles, and the comparing them with previous plans that had much lower deductibles provides no information?

Sure I'll address it on exactly same footing as you claiming it:

Today's policies do not have higher deductibles compared to pre-Obamacare growth trend.That's it. I don't have to support anything, I feel like claiming it, so why not?

That's just to give a taste of what your posting looks like.



Now I will do one better:

Out-of-pocket costs | The Incidental Economist

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

Your graph is meaningless. Being insured does not equate to getting health care.

You are saying that passing Obamacare and forcing people to buy insurance "in the name of something moral" does not equate to using government to enforce Christian values.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

And the insurance companies are very pleased by this outcome. But insurance is more expensive, and provides less coverage, than ever before.

Insurance is more expensive but not more expensive than it otherwise would have been according to historical trend.

And less coverage? Can you support such a claim?

What historical trend ?

There is nothing to suggest Obamacare did any of the so called cost curve bending.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And dodging the fact that the more government intervenes, the worse things get. The spiraling costs of healthcare are a direct result of too much government interference in the health care market. That's why more of the same seems kind of insane.

Parroting same thing over and over without account for responses you get will not impress anyone.

Spiraling costs of healthcare is somehow not a thing in other countries with single payer systems is it? How can that be if government intervention causes higher prices? It would seem our healthcare spending should be way down compared to other, more government intervention heavy countries, but that's not what has been happening.

Government intervened to reform the system to slow down healthcare spending growth, establish standards for quality of coverage and make sure more people can get insured.

Facts show that the reform has so far been more or less successful in achieving those goals and has moved us in the right direction.

Great..insurance people can't use.

Hope you sleep well knowing that.

We still spend today what we did five years ago.

 

[AntonToo]

Your graph is meaningless. Being insured does not equate to getting health care.

umm yes insurance is insurance, healthcare is healthcare, but one pays for the other - DUH?

Being insured (perhaps with some very rare exception) means you have a way to cover your medical bills. This politico talking point about how people getting insured doesn't matter is just righty reactionary nonsense in light of Obamacare's success in expanding coverage.

Timeline of rw positions flowed from "Nobody will sign up" to "Administration is lying about people signing up" to "People signing up doesn't matter".

You are saying that passing Obamacare and forcing people to buy insurance "in the name of something moral" does not equate to using government to enforce Christian values.

I always thought that making sure that when people get sick they should get the medical attention they need, even if they can't pay for it. And I always considered such humane approach VERY MUCH part of Christian values. Am I wrong?

Obamacare simply reworks the system so that people have more access to coverage and are less likely to end up in a position where medical bills bankrupt them or get passed on to someone else. Part of that is allowing people to get insured at sane cost, indiscriminately of their heath condition. But to do that a mandate is required to prevent cheating of the system where people would only get covered when they they have a medical need.

Republicans used to call this approach "personal responsibility" and were proposing it as an alternative to Single Payer solution democrats were pushing. Heritage was applauding Romney for implementing this very blueprint in Massachusetts and it's pretty much what Obamacare used as a model...but as soon as Democrats agreed with their approach their silly reactionary nature again kicked in and knocked their heads so hard they forgot all about their past positions. To this day Republicans are scrambling to come up with some kind of sane alternative to their prior alternative...with nothing meaningful to report thus far.

This could have been very different. Republicans that supported healthcare reform could have stood by the conviction of their ideas, instead of pandering to their base and politics and today we could have been much further along in improving our healthcare system.

 

[dblack]

Your graph is meaningless. Being insured does not equate to getting health care.

umm yes insurance is insurance, healthcare is healthcare, but one pays for the other - DUH?

Being insured (perhaps with some very rare exception) means you have a way to cover your medical bills. This politico talking point about how people getting insured doesn't matter is just righty reactionary nonsense in light of Obamacare's success in expanding coverage.

Timeline of rw positions flowed from "Nobody will sign up" to "Administration is lying about people signing up" to "People signing up doesn't matter".

You are saying that passing Obamacare and forcing people to buy insurance "in the name of something moral" does not equate to using government to enforce Christian values.

I always thought that making sure that when people get sick they should get the medical attention they need, even if they can't pay for it. And I always considered such humane approach VERY MUCH part of Christian values. Am I wrong?

Obamacare simply reworks the system so that people have more access to coverage and are less likely to end up in a position where medical bills bankrupt them or get passed on to someone else. Part of that is allowing people to get insured at sane cost, indiscriminately of their heath condition. But to do that a mandate is required to prevent cheating of the system where people would only get covered when they they have a medical need.

Republicans used to call this approach "personal responsibility" and were proposing it as an alternative to Single Payer solution democrats were pushing. Heritage was applauding Romney for implementing this very blueprint in Massachusetts and it's pretty much what Obamacare used as a model...but as soon as Democrats agreed with their approach their silly reactionary nature again kicked in and knocked their heads so hard they forgot all about their past positions. To this day Republicans are scrambling to come up with some kind of sane alternative to their prior alternative...with nothing meaningful to report thus far.

This could have been very different. Republicans that supported healthcare reform could have stood by the conviction of their ideas, instead of pandering to their base and politics and today we could have been much further along in improving our healthcare system.

ACA 'reworks the system' to force everyone into buying corporate health insurance, whether they want it or not. The fact that this idea was first proposed by an article on a conservative thinktank's website, in no way removes responsibility from the Democrats who voted for it. They sold us out. Period.

 

[AntonToo]

ACA 'reworks the system' to force everyone into buying corporate health insurance, whether they want it or not. The fact that this idea was first proposed by an article on a conservative thinktank's website, in no way removes responsibility from the Democrats who voted for it. They sold us out. Period.

Or maybe they just thought it was a good idea.

Healthcare Insurance companies are big because there is efficiency to scale and less volatility in larger risk pools, I don't see why that's a concern.

And if what you say is true then how do you explain caps on insurance company profits in the bill? You really going to claim that insurance companies wrote it in there?

Consumers have gained more than $3.25 billion in benefits over two years from a Obamacare rule that financially compels insurers to keep a tight rein on overhead costs relative to the medical claims they pay out

Obamacare's $3 billion insurance windfall

 

[dblack]

ACA 'reworks the system' to force everyone into buying corporate health insurance, whether they want it or not. The fact that this idea was first proposed by an article on a conservative thinktank's website, in no way removes responsibility from the Democrats who voted for it. They sold us out. Period.

Or maybe they just thought it was a good idea.

Healthcare Insurance companies are big because there is efficiency to scale and less volatility in larger risk pools, I don't see why that's a concern.

And if what you say is true then how do you explain caps on insurance company profits in the bill? You really going to claim that insurance companies wrote it in there?

Yep. Guaranteed revenue is infinitely more desirable than unlimited profits, especially for the vested interests in the industry. This is a common pattern in regulatory regimes. The dominant players, who can afford lower profit margins and higher overhead (and have an army of lobbyists to protect their interests) will always favor regulations that stifle competition and raise the barrier to entry - and, even more so, regulations that control their market.

Consumers have gained more than $3.25 billion in benefits over two years from a Obamacare rule that financially compels insurers to keep a tight rein on overhead costs relative to the medical claims they pay out

Obamacare's $3 billion insurance windfall

No. Obamacare isn’t killing the insurance industry.

 

[AntonToo]

ACA 'reworks the system' to force everyone into buying corporate health insurance, whether they want it or not. The fact that this idea was first proposed by an article on a conservative thinktank's website, in no way removes responsibility from the Democrats who voted for it. They sold us out. Period.

Or maybe they just thought it was a good idea.

Healthcare Insurance companies are big because there is efficiency to scale and less volatility in larger risk pools, I don't see why that's a concern.

And if what you say is true then how do you explain caps on insurance company profits in the bill? You really going to claim that insurance companies wrote it in there?

Yep. Guaranteed revenue is infinitely more desirable than unlimited profits, especially for the vested interests in the industry. This is a common pattern in regulatory regimes. The dominant players, who can afford lower profit margins and higher overhead (and have an army of lobbyists to protect their interests) will always favor regulations that stifle competition and raise the barrier to entry - and, even more so, regulations that control their market.

Consumers have gained more than $3.25 billion in benefits over two years from a Obamacare rule that financially compels insurers to keep a tight rein on overhead costs relative to the medical claims they pay out

Obamacare's $3 billion insurance windfall

No. Obamacare isn’t killing the insurance industry.

Kill the insurance industry? No why in the world would you want to do that? Do you really like single payer option that much?

Here is what we want:

Insurance companies are solvent
Insurance companies provide products up to minimal standards.
Insurance companies compete on transparent, even field.
Insurance companies keep overhead reasonable.

Obamacare addresses all those wants and does not seem to be slanted to one side. It makes sense.

 

[dblack]

ACA 'reworks the system' to force everyone into buying corporate health insurance, whether they want it or not. The fact that this idea was first proposed by an article on a conservative thinktank's website, in no way removes responsibility from the Democrats who voted for it. They sold us out. Period.

Or maybe they just thought it was a good idea.

Healthcare Insurance companies are big because there is efficiency to scale and less volatility in larger risk pools, I don't see why that's a concern.

And if what you say is true then how do you explain caps on insurance company profits in the bill? You really going to claim that insurance companies wrote it in there?

Yep. Guaranteed revenue is infinitely more desirable than unlimited profits, especially for the vested interests in the industry. This is a common pattern in regulatory regimes. The dominant players, who can afford lower profit margins and higher overhead (and have an army of lobbyists to protect their interests) will always favor regulations that stifle competition and raise the barrier to entry - and, even more so, regulations that control their market.

Consumers have gained more than $3.25 billion in benefits over two years from a Obamacare rule that financially compels insurers to keep a tight rein on overhead costs relative to the medical claims they pay out

Obamacare's $3 billion insurance windfall

No. Obamacare isn’t killing the insurance industry.

Kill the insurance industry? No why in the world would you want to do that?

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

 

[AntonToo]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Since the 80's people were free to get whatever arrangement they felt like (at least from federal perspective), why didn't they choose something else?

 

[dblack]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

 

[AntonToo]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?