Obamacare continues to drive the cost curve up

[peach174]

It isn't that ACA is driving up prices, (they've been rising faster than inflation for 40 years) it's that ACA does nothing to prevent prices from raising.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will until I find evidence to refute it.

If you have any, and I think it's credible, I'll be only to happy to change my mind and laud you for helping me to learn something.

Fair?

It's called the Affordable Health Care Act.
Dems promised us that this would bring the cost of our premiums down.
Instead it is bringing up the cost of premiums faster than it was before the new Health Care bill.
The cost of our drugs that we pay for out of pocket is going up also.

 

[dblack]

Keep telling yourself that.

I will until I find evidence to refute it.

If you have any, and I think it's credible, I'll be only to happy to change my mind and laud you for helping me to learn something.

Fair?

It's called the Affordable Health Care Act.
Dems promised us that this would bring the cost of our premiums down.
Instead it is bringing up the cost of premiums faster than it was before the new Health Care bill.
The cost of our drugs that we pay for out of pocket is going up also.

The entire thing was a bait and switch.

 

[lynn63]

Do your homework and review what the top 5 health insurance carriers in this country make in profits over the last 10 years. Then look at the statistical information of the top 5 leading causes of death and which age groups use the most in healthcare services. Heart Disease starts to show up in people at age 45 and up, Cancer increase for that group too but insurance companies always found a way to drop them in the past.

It is also in this age group where you will most likely to laid off and has the highest numbers in unemployment so Health insurance companies are not paying much for this group. People on Medicaid do not affect health insurance companies since the government pays that.

People that do not have any insurance does not effect Health insurance companies. The message here is the insurance companies lost a great deal of their healthy pool of individuals due to many jobs leaving this country. Those people seldom used healthcare while their premiums were pure profit.

The ACA is providing the insurance companies the population that are mostly healthy people that managed to escape having to pay for healthcare premiums in the past. There is no justifiable reason to raise costs on us since it is the older population and Medicaid population that used healthcare services that account for the majority of costs.

Having to provide insurance on your children up to 26 years old only added more profit since they are collecting family premiums on that group. Raising costs on healthcare because now they have to pay more for preventative care is not true. Most people don't care about going to their doctor for preventive services unless you are a woman of child bearing years if they are not sick and feel healthy.

The people that have denied for pre-existing conditions will be covered but they will pay big dollars to have this opportunity so this is not a good reason to raise costs on premiums. It is for pure greed and they will find any excuse to raise premiums even with the statistical information not supporting them.

They know with enough media shoving their beliefs down our throat that the public will believe them and buy it. People don't want to do their own homework or have the time to seek the truth and the health industry knows it.

 

[dblack]

... They know with enough media shoving their beliefs down our throat that the public will believe them and buy it. People don't want to do their own homework or have the time to seek the truth and the health industry knows it.

Yup. That's exactly how they got PPACA passed in the first place.

 

[tap4154]

I will until I find evidence to refute it.

If you have any, and I think it's credible, I'll be only to happy to change my mind and laud you for helping me to learn something.

Fair?

It's called the Affordable Health Care Act.
Dems promised us that this would bring the cost of our premiums down.
Instead it is bringing up the cost of premiums faster than it was before the new Health Care bill.
The cost of our drugs that we pay for out of pocket is going up also.

The entire thing was a bait and switch.

Yep, EVERYTHING that was promised in the ACA was a
LIE.

HC is only getting MORE expensive.

We cannot keep the coverage and doc we have now.

The poor will still be on Medicaid, but joined by many millions more, even some
middle class folks and families who will be dumped into Medicaid, depending on
each years income, or loss.

It's a job killer, not a job creator, as Pelosi claimed.

Folks are being dumped from employee coverage, and employers are shifting folks
to part time and/or not hiring, to avoid the hassle and costs of Obamacare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you only change the oil in your car when it needs to be changed or when it is recommended that it be changed? Which is better for the health and longevity of your vehicle?

Talk to the CBO, that group that you loved when they said that Obamacare would cost less than $1 trillion, they are the ones that argue that it will raise the cost.

Since you raised this topic the onus is on you to provide the link where the CBO is saying that "more people use it than need it" and that this will raise the cost.

I provided a link to a story that discusses the CBO report. If you have you have to provide evidence it is wrong.

Nice try though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't that ACA is driving up prices, (they've been rising faster than inflation for 40 years) it's that ACA does nothing to prevent prices from raising.

Keep telling yourself that.

I will until I find evidence to refute it.

If you have any, and I think it's credible, I'll be only to happy to change my mind and laud you for helping me to learn something.

Fair?

Take a look at the numbers, there was a clear trend in lower rate hikes before Obamacare, now they are going up faster than before.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't that ACA is driving up prices, (they've been rising faster than inflation for 40 years) it's that ACA does nothing to prevent prices from raising.

On the other hand, health price inflation hasn't been this low since the last time the cost curve briefly bent (the late '90s).

Health care price inflation in January 2013, at 1.5% year-over-year, was two tenths below December’s reading and the lowest level since 1.3% measured in December 1997. The 12-month moving average at 2.0% in January 2013 is the lowest since 1.9% recorded in December 1998.

On the other hand, that drop is directly attributable to the slowdown in the economy, and prices are going to spike next year no matter what the economy does.

Nice try at earning your pay though.

 

[Greenbeard]

On the other hand, that drop is directly attributable to the slowdown in the economy, and prices are going to spike next year no matter what the economy does.

How does the ACA "continue to drive the cost curve up" if you acknowledge that the cost curve is actually bending for the first time in a decade and a half as we speak?

Health price inflation, cost growth (across the public and private sector), and national health expenditures increases are all at historic lows. Scramble for whatever alternate explanation of the sustained slowdown you like, threads like this are nonsensical under these circumstances.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Talk to the CBO, that group that you loved when they said that Obamacare would cost less than $1 trillion, they are the ones that argue that it will raise the cost.

Since you raised this topic the onus is on you to provide the link where the CBO is saying that "more people use it than need it" and that this will raise the cost.

I provided a link to a story that discusses the CBO report. If you have you have to provide evidence it is wrong.

Nice try though.

Your link was to a partisan story that selectively chose to only use one single out of context aspect of the CBO's letter that was a response to a request from an ethically challenged Republican congressman.

Nathan Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Deal has "personally intervened with Georgia leaders to preserve an obscure state program that earns his company nearly $300,000 a year".

The Office of Congressional Ethics released a report on March 29, 2010 that concluded Deal appeared to have improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. Deal stated: “I have done nothing wrong and am not going to let this tarnish my (..) record of public service”.[11]
The Office of Congressional Ethics, OCE, released their investigative report (Review No. 09-1022) on March 29, 2010. The report stipulates that "[t]he OCE does not take a position on Representative Deal's motivations for inserting himself into discussions of potential modifications to a state vehicle inspection program... The OCE reviews the facts as presented at the time of review and does not take a position on whether Representative Deal's income from GSD was mistakenly reported as earned income since 2006 on his federal income taxes... [F]or all the reasons stated above, the OCE Board recommends further review by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct". (Note: Report was submitted on January 28, 2010.) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, otherwise known as the House Ethics Committee, never reported or commented on any investigation of Representative Deal,[12] as his resignation, announced March 1, 2010, excluded him from the Office of Congressional Ethics' jurisdiction.

Southern Magnolia Capital controversy
Dale Russell from WAGA-TV investigated a fund-raising company named Southern Magnolia Capital, since they were paid a sum of $90,000 during Nathan Deal's gubernatorial campaign. A thorough investigation revealed that the company is linked to Nathan Deal's daughter-in-law, Denise Deal, raising the question of whether ethics laws were violated.[27] As a response, WAGA was denied access to a public event at Governor Nathan Deal’s office—the signing of a controversial immigration bill.[28]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-prevention.pdf

As a result, even when new prevention and wellness activities funded from
discretionary appropriations would, in CBO’s judgment, generate eventual
savings in Medicare or Medicaid, those savings would not be credited to the
appropriation action as part of the budget scorekeeping process. Some legislation
would authorize such appropriations, but not provide them, leaving that action for
future appropriation bills. Because such legislation would not actually provide
funding for prevention or wellness activities, it too could not be credited
with savings in mandatory programs. However, once an appropriation bill becomes
law, any estimated savings in Medicare or Medicaid are factored into CBO’s
baseline projections; consequently, any realized savings in such cases will in fact
reduce budget deficits (unless they are used for other purposes)

 

[tap4154]

On the other hand, that drop is directly attributable to the slowdown in the economy, and prices are going to spike next year no matter what the economy does.

How does the ACA "continue to drive the cost curve up" if you acknowledge that the cost curve is actually bending for the first time in a decade and a half as we speak?

Health price inflation, cost growth (across the public and private sector), and national health expenditures increases are all at historic lows. Scramble for whatever alternate explanation of the sustained slowdown you like, threads like this are nonsensical under these circumstances.

Scramble for whatever lame talking points the WH/OFA keeps handing you, but premiums are going to skyrocket next year, and have already increased far more than before the ACA debate began BECAUSE of the ACA.

 

[Derideo_Te]

On the other hand, that drop is directly attributable to the slowdown in the economy, and prices are going to spike next year no matter what the economy does.

How does the ACA "continue to drive the cost curve up" if you acknowledge that the cost curve is actually bending for the first time in a decade and a half as we speak?

Health price inflation, cost growth (across the public and private sector), and national health expenditures increases are all at historic lows. Scramble for whatever alternate explanation of the sustained slowdown you like, threads like this are nonsensical under these circumstances.

Scramble for whatever lame talking points the WH/OFA keeps handing you, but premiums are going to skyrocket next year, and have already increased far more than before the ACA debate began BECAUSE of the ACA.

Do you also read palms?

 

[tap4154]

How does the ACA "continue to drive the cost curve up" if you acknowledge that the cost curve is actually bending for the first time in a decade and a half as we speak?

Health price inflation, cost growth (across the public and private sector), and national health expenditures increases are all at historic lows. Scramble for whatever alternate explanation of the sustained slowdown you like, threads like this are nonsensical under these circumstances.

Scramble for whatever lame talking points the WH/OFA keeps handing you, but premiums are going to skyrocket next year, and have already increased far more than before the ACA debate began BECAUSE of the ACA.

Do you also read palms?

Nope, just what the insurers are telling brokers, and what Kaiser told me about my policy.

It may double in cost next year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On the other hand, that drop is directly attributable to the slowdown in the economy, and prices are going to spike next year no matter what the economy does.

How does the ACA "continue to drive the cost curve up" if you acknowledge that the cost curve is actually bending for the first time in a decade and a half as we speak?

Health price inflation, cost growth (across the public and private sector), and national health expenditures increases are all at historic lows. Scramble for whatever alternate explanation of the sustained slowdown you like, threads like this are nonsensical under these circumstances.

That is not what I said. I am pointing out that the cost curve started bending down before Obamacare was even passed, and continued up until Obamacare took affect. Now that Obamacare is actually hitting the cost curve is going up again.

Want to try and post some numbers that prove me wrong? You have access to all the studies the government has published, surely, if I am wrong, you would have posted something to prove it instead of simply trying to make it look like I said something we both know I didn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since you raised this topic the onus is on you to provide the link where the CBO is saying that "more people use it than need it" and that this will raise the cost.

I provided a link to a story that discusses the CBO report. If you have you have to provide evidence it is wrong.

Nice try though.

Your link was to a partisan story that selectively chose to only use one single out of context aspect of the CBO's letter that was a response to a request from an ethically challenged Republican congressman.

Nathan Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Deal has "personally intervened with Georgia leaders to preserve an obscure state program that earns his company nearly $300,000 a year".

The Office of Congressional Ethics released a report on March 29, 2010 that concluded Deal appeared to have improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. Deal stated: “I have done nothing wrong and am not going to let this tarnish my (..) record of public service”.[11]
The Office of Congressional Ethics, OCE, released their investigative report (Review No. 09-1022) on March 29, 2010. The report stipulates that "[t]he OCE does not take a position on Representative Deal's motivations for inserting himself into discussions of potential modifications to a state vehicle inspection program... The OCE reviews the facts as presented at the time of review and does not take a position on whether Representative Deal's income from GSD was mistakenly reported as earned income since 2006 on his federal income taxes... [F]or all the reasons stated above, the OCE Board recommends further review by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct". (Note: Report was submitted on January 28, 2010.) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, otherwise known as the House Ethics Committee, never reported or commented on any investigation of Representative Deal,[12] as his resignation, announced March 1, 2010, excluded him from the Office of Congressional Ethics' jurisdiction.

Southern Magnolia Capital controversy
Dale Russell from WAGA-TV investigated a fund-raising company named Southern Magnolia Capital, since they were paid a sum of $90,000 during Nathan Deal's gubernatorial campaign. A thorough investigation revealed that the company is linked to Nathan Deal's daughter-in-law, Denise Deal, raising the question of whether ethics laws were violated.[27] As a response, WAGA was denied access to a public event at Governor Nathan Deal’s office—the signing of a controversial immigration bill.[28]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-prevention.pdf

As a result, even when new prevention and wellness activities funded from
discretionary appropriations would, in CBO’s judgment, generate eventual
savings in Medicare or Medicaid, those savings would not be credited to the
appropriation action as part of the budget scorekeeping process. Some legislation
would authorize such appropriations, but not provide them, leaving that action for
future appropriation bills. Because such legislation would not actually provide
funding for prevention or wellness activities, it too could not be credited
with savings in mandatory programs. However, once an appropriation bill becomes
law, any estimated savings in Medicare or Medicaid are factored into CBO’s
baseline projections; consequently, any realized savings in such cases will in fact
reduce budget deficits (unless they are used for other purposes)

Attacking the source, what an original concept.

By the way, very nice selective quoting from the letter you linked to. Did you get help from a paid research hack, or did you come up with it all on your own? Is there a reason you did not quote the second paragraph? Could it be because it actually makes the same point I did?

Preventive Medical Care
Preventive medical care includes services such as cancer screening, cholesterol
management, and vaccines. In making its estimates of the budgetary effects of expanded governmental support for preventive care, CBO takes into account any estimated savings that would result from greater use of such care as well as the estimated costs of that additional care. Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending
overall.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does the ACA "continue to drive the cost curve up" if you acknowledge that the cost curve is actually bending for the first time in a decade and a half as we speak?

Health price inflation, cost growth (across the public and private sector), and national health expenditures increases are all at historic lows. Scramble for whatever alternate explanation of the sustained slowdown you like, threads like this are nonsensical under these circumstances.

Scramble for whatever lame talking points the WH/OFA keeps handing you, but premiums are going to skyrocket next year, and have already increased far more than before the ACA debate began BECAUSE of the ACA.

Do you also read palms?

The companies are admitting it openly, and are actually incentive to raise premiums by the 80/20 spending ratio that Obamacare instituted. They get to take more of your money, reducing their risk, and return it to you a year later without paying interest on it.

Yet you, for some moronic reason, think that is a great idea.