ObaCare Reduces MediCare Costs Already: Opposed By All Of GOP!

[Seawytch]

Funny how these companies that can't function because all of President Obama's "regulations" are doing just fine...

Health Insurers Making Record Profits

Are you surprised? Thats who buddied up with DEAR LEADER to help craft the legislation. You dont bad mouth us and you will reap rewards.

No, that's who paid off our legislators to stop things like a Public Option...that most Americans WANTED.

Health Care Lobbyists' Rise to Power

 

[mascale]

Likely even former Senate Leader, Bob Dole, will be on board for some new form of stimulation. That, however, was a Different Republican Party from what there is now.

The Republicans took away the Social Security COLA for two years, with their manufactured downturn from from the lack of banking regulations.

Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden, have managed to get the health care inflation control underway already.

That bodes will for year-end spending, and the associated employment gains. Even old people can go the stores and do shopping. The GOP has been opposed to more customers in U. S. stores for months!

"Crow,James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Not on Lands of Many Nations: Still for laissez-faire approach to residential crops, unless there are subsidies to go along with the regulations(?)!)

 

[LoneLaugher]

Man.....all these numbers. You are going to confuse some folks.

 

[Conservative]

 

[mascale]

In America--and in civilized socialist planet worldwide--lubricants and stimulations are widely known to have an important role to play in modern, earthly life.

These were the kinds of matters that adults actually discussed on TV.

Governor Perry would even more likely be a home: Discssing lubricants and stimulators. Herman Cain even this week wants eveyone to talk about conception!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many not on Lands of Many Nations: Also want to talk about contraception, if DEA is at all involved. "Put A Rubber On It," is the American Way of Life!)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

ObaCare Reduces MediCare Costs Already: Opposed By All Of GOP!

....But, that's never kept a good capitali$t down!!
​

February 28, 2012​

"A Texas doctor and five owners of home health-care agencies were arrested Tuesday on charges that they fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid nearly $375 million in what authorities described as the largest case of its kind.

The doctor, Jacques Roy, 54, of Rockwall, was charged with masterminding a Medicare fraud conspiracy over the past six years. The alleged fraud involved classifying as homebound 11,000 patients recruited by a network of more than 500 agencies, then billing Medicare for services and home visits that were either not medically necessary or were not provided, according to the indictment, filed in the Northern District of Texas."

Tuesday’s indictment marks the latest in a series of federal Medicare fraud cases, which have become a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s push to bring down health-care costs. In 2011, health-care-fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion that had been stolen or improperly taken from federal programs, the highest annual amount ever recovered, according to a recent report by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services."

TEXAS: $375M Health-Care Scam​

"Ya' **** with the bull....ya' get the horn!"​

 

[Conservative]

CMS Actuaries: Obamacare Increases Costs | Heartlander Magazine

Contrary to claims made by the Obama administration during the fight to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), government actuaries are now predicting President Obama’s law will result in increased costs, instead of lowering them.

In a study released in Health Affairs, actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expect an annual increase in health care spending from 2010-2019 of 0.2 percent over estimates made before passage of the PPACA. They also predict spending will reach $4.6 trillion in 2019, for an average annual growth rate of 6.3 percent during that time.

Hearing Confirms ObamaCare Increases Costs, Uncertainty for Employers | Education & the Workforce Committee

March 10, 2011 -

Today, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing to investigate the rising cost of employer-provided health care and its impact on workers. Members of the subcommittee heard testimony that described a number of factors contributing to the growing expense, including the Democrats’ recent government takeover of health care.

Blog: Health insurance costs to rise 31% under Obamacare says plan's architect

In 2011, officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado ordered reports from Gruber which offer a drastically different portrait in 2012 from the one Obama painted just 17 months ago.

"As a consequence of the Affordable Care Act," the president said in September 2010, "premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise."

Gruber's new reports are in direct contrast Obama's words - and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, "[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums."

During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law's subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall.

"After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent," Gruber reported.

The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don't meet the Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans.

WellPoint Studies Show ObamaCare Increases Costs - WSJ.com

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers.

Medicare Actuary: Obamacare Will Triple the Growth Rate of Net Insurance Costs

Well, the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently put out its annual projections of national health care spending. And, contrary to the President, the actuaries find that Obamacare will dramatically increase the near-term growth rate of health care costs. In 2014, the actuaries find that growth in the net cost of health insurance will increase by nearly 14 percent, compared to 3.5% if PPACA had never passed. The growth rate of private insurance costs will rise to 9.4 percent, from 5.0 percent under prior law: an 88% increase.

 

[Claudette]

CMS Actuaries: Obamacare Increases Costs | Heartlander Magazine

Contrary to claims made by the Obama administration during the fight to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), government actuaries are now predicting President Obama’s law will result in increased costs, instead of lowering them.

In a study released in Health Affairs, actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expect an annual increase in health care spending from 2010-2019 of 0.2 percent over estimates made before passage of the PPACA. They also predict spending will reach $4.6 trillion in 2019, for an average annual growth rate of 6.3 percent during that time.

Hearing Confirms ObamaCare Increases Costs, Uncertainty for Employers | Education & the Workforce Committee

March 10, 2011 -

Today, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing to investigate the rising cost of employer-provided health care and its impact on workers. Members of the subcommittee heard testimony that described a number of factors contributing to the growing expense, including the Democrats’ recent government takeover of health care.

Blog: Health insurance costs to rise 31% under Obamacare says plan's architect


WellPoint Studies Show ObamaCare Increases Costs - WSJ.com

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers.

Medicare Actuary: Obamacare Will Triple the Growth Rate of Net Insurance Costs

Well, the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently put out its annual projections of national health care spending. And, contrary to the President, the actuaries find that Obamacare will dramatically increase the near-term growth rate of health care costs. In 2014, the actuaries find that growth in the net cost of health insurance will increase by nearly 14 percent, compared to 3.5% if PPACA had never passed. The growth rate of private insurance costs will rise to 9.4 percent, from 5.0 percent under prior law: an 88% increase.

Gee. Guess Mascale was wrong.

Big surprise.

My costs have gone up and anyone buying their own insurance has seen their costs go up quite a bit.

Oh yeah. Obamacare will lower costs. Anyone truly believe that??

 

[peach174]

Ours went up faster than the regular increase for the last two years. It increased by 31.00 in 2011 and now is up by 46.00 this year.
Also if you can't get your meds with a generic prescription, the increase in meds have gone up too. We are paying an extra 50.00 now for a med that my husband takes, because he can't get it in a generic.

 

[mascale]

Time was that mangoes and bananas were even free: They were so abundant. Even the light-opera writers themselves, however: Knew that some things weren't that cheap(?). . .especially if just a little bit tawdry(?)!

Cited in the reason why some health care costs will increase: The current plans don't seem to offer much coverage, but do create incomes for insurers and profiteers!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(There is nothing you can name, that costs anything like a(?). . .well. . . !)

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats have a point. If treatment is denied, the costs are reduced. It's the whole point of Cass Sunstein's health care plan.

 

[peach174]

Funny...my Tricare didn't go up. I'm still only paying under $500 a year for family coverage under Tricare Prime. Ah, that socialized military health care!

I got news for you.
Under President Obama's budget cuts to the military, your Tricare is going to go up a whole bunch. As much as 300%

 

[mascale]

The Religious Society of Friends, eventually became dubbed, "Quakers," ". . .for they bade the people quake at the fear of the Lord." Mostly, likely only some deity possibly knows what they were talking about. In fact, Quakers rarely talk about very much at all, especially in church. There is something to that. Nixon eventually quit. Nixon had a thing for the Communist Chinese, instead. Fidel Castro(?) was a known talker, like Nikita Kruschev(?). Neither were known to be fluent in Chinese, which may otherwise explain Nixon.

The Industrial Revolution hit the working class neighborhoods of England after 1650. Quaker shopkeepers became known, in many neighborhoods: As the forerunners of unit pricing in modern supermarkets. The shopkeeper would advertise the price. The adults could send the children to the shop with the list of ordered goods, and the correct amount of money, and expect the children to come home with exactly what had been ordered. Relief from the 10 and 12 hour unregulated workdays, was at hand.

Even in the street markets in Southern California, even now: Usually prices, historically, get negotiated at point of purchase. Wall Street has even now turned to FBI, and to Hollywood, for help with the usual market practices of history. . .or something. "Free Market" is just another word(?) for, "Profiteering, Gouging, Cheating, Swindling, Bilking, Fraudi, Misrepresentation," and the Holy Father's own Christian Hitler Youth.

Regulated food, fuel, medicine, weapons, and most of regulated life: Carry the guarantee that the working class neighborhoods got from the Quakers. In exchange for money, then there were known goods and services provided.

Not so in Santorum-Gingrich world.

Not even in the Holy Father's, own Christian Hitler Youth: Would a fair exchange of money, for commodities, be in place. Jews, Slavs, Poles, Radicials, Dissidents, and Homosexuals knew this best. Nisei internees in WWII would not get a fair exchange of money, in return for personal assets put up for sale. They would be included, over there(?). . .or here.

The older ways, of appeal to the Holy Father, the Santorum and Gingrich families--and of the one Catholic's, multiple families--are different from what Quakers had invented. Quakers are the Founders in Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia. In "Federalist Papers," Madison and Hamilton acknowledge that much of the Framing Document was created so as not to offend the Quakers--a more majority actual religion, at the time. There was no Utah, at the time: Or much of Nevada. Senator Reid can acknowledge, however, the concept of regulated services. Millions of teenage boys, on the West Coast, in fact. . . . ." Cults can in fact do regulations.

Regulated health care is every bit is fundamental to American Christian Faith and Practice, in the Religious Society of Friends(?). . .or something. Mainly, the Catholic tradition tends to haggle, in the framework also known of Israel, and even of historical times.

In all cases: It is still germane to ask just what it is they think they are talking about, otherwise. Israel even kept written records, of what they did. Some cults just find the stuff, lying around in Central Park(?), instead.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(Lands of Many Nations, understand now about "Inner Glow" of White Eyes: From regulated medication in abundant supply at local stores!)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

and mine increased by 2000 and got notification it will raise again in Jan. So whats your point/

He has none.... healthcare costs are rising rapidly. He's just nmaking shit up. My company's premiums have risen by nearly 32% over the past two years.

 

[Claudette]

Hold onto your hat Sog.

They are going up more.

After all ya gotta pay for those that can't pay for themselves.

 

[mascale]

One downside of unit pricing is that people with more money units can buy it, people with fewer cannot.

Lincoln's attempt at The Great Genocide of White People, was largely reliant on the medical technology of the time. Joseph Mengelee would easily be regarded a Catholic Saint by comparison. . .possibly in the context of the Holy Father's own Christian Hitler Youth(?)!

Mostly, in the Wild West after that--During the Post-Lincoln Republican, Great Genocide of Indigenous People--The rich would pay more than the poor for medical services. Even now, in fact, the medical services tend to flee the rural regions, in favor of the unit-priced urban medical regions. Access surcharges appear nowhere in any customary billings. Insurers do not report such payments. No politician discusses such payments. Clearly, a free and unregulated economy doesn't work.

In return for food, then the Claudette poster sees no viable need for Rural Farm Republicans to have access to medical services!

There is the Santorum-Gingrich plan for the United States in a capsule. . .or thimble. . .or thimble. . .or joint, or something(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations understand Medicine from Scotland, better than Medicine from the Plains, anymore!)

 

[PredFan]

Reducing Medicare costs? I doubt it but it is increasing the costs elsewhere:

Michelle Malkin » Big Surprise: Obamacare’s Pre-Existing Condition Plan Costing Twice as Much Per Enrollee as Originally Estimated

Obamacare's pre-existing insurance is costing double what they said it would.

 

[Greenbeard]

As near as I can tell, the OP is about Medicare spending. And Medicare has unequivocally just had two of the best years of its existence.

As for total health spending, Karen Davis recently unpacked the CMS Actuaries' updated look at health spending in the January 2012 Health Affairs:

A major point that has been overlooked in the analysis is that CMS is projecting lower health spending over the rest of the decade. While it is almost certainly the case that the poor economy is having an effect on current spending, the recession doesn’t plausibly explain why projected health spending in 2020 is substantially below estimates made just two years ago. Either the original estimates were too high, or the tectonic plates underlying the health system are beginning to shift in anticipation of new incentives under health reform or in response to health care leaders’ efforts to transform care over the last decade.

CMS's estimates of health care spending through the end of the decade have been steadily falling over the last year and a half. As shown in Exhibit 1, the most recent projection of national health spending in 2020 is $4.6 trillion, or 19.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), compared with its projection of $4.9 trillion, or 21.1 percent of GDP, in 2009 in the absence of reform. This represents a $275 billion (5.6 percent) reduction for 2020, compared with pre-reform estimates. Moreover, that projection represents a cumulative reduction of $1.7 trillion over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020.3

This reduction in projected national health spending is particularly important because the pre-reform projection of health care costs was used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the CMS Office of the Actuary in estimating the cost and impact of health reform. Already, spending is far below the trajectory projected to result from implementation of the Affordable Care Act.4 In fact, reduction in utilization of health services and trims in payment rates under the Affordable Care Act more than offset the projected cost of covering the uninsured.

Projected Medicare spending is even further below original estimates, and provisions in the Affordable Care Act play a major role in the new, lower numbers. As shown in Exhibit 2, Medicare spending in 2020 is now estimated to be $922 billion, which is $150 billion lower than the $1.07 trillion projected by CMS pre-reform. As the Health Affairs authors note, Medicare savings come from Affordable Care Act changes in payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans, home health agencies, and other providers (effective October 1, 2009), fraud and abuse provisions, as well as requirements for prescription drug rebates for Medicare managed care plans (effective January 1, 2010). The official CBO health reform estimates included $397 billion in projected Medicare savings from Affordable Care Act provisions over the 2010–19 period.5 But it would now appear that the reduction in projected Medicare outlays over a 10-year period is almost twice that.

At a minimum, dire predictions that the Affordable Care Act would fail to control costs and, in fact, accelerate spending have not been borne out by the early experience. It now appears that both the costs of covering the uninsured and Medicare spending are substantially below pre-reform estimates.

 

[mascale]

Mormons actually have a lot in common with Presbyterians(?)--and likely millions can figure that out(?)!

So people are reading this: "At a minimum, dire predictions that the Affordable Care Act would fail to control costs and, in fact, accelerate spending have not been borne out by the early experience. It now appears that both the costs of covering the uninsured and Medicare spending are substantially below pre-reform estimates."

It's way easier to read just that: Than to read what Mormons and Presbyterians put the people through(?)!

Mostly, anyone knows that in a free market: The peaches are edible, or they are not. The ones that are not, you give to the poor, and take a charitable deduction!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Holy Father's own Christian Hitler Youth--knew all about the charities of Western Civilization, even then(?)!)

 

[Greenbeard]

Mostly, anyone knows that in a free market: The peaches are edible, or they are not. The ones that are not, you give to the poor, and take a charitable deduction!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eipl17WpOo]Muffin Stumps[/ame]

But yes, Davis' point is worth repeating: "At a minimum, dire predictions that the Affordable Care Act would fail to control costs and, in fact, accelerate spending have not been borne out by the early experience. It now appears that both the costs of covering the uninsured and Medicare spending are substantially below pre-reform estimates."