Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president

[Conservative]

As I mentioned, there's already some preliminary evidence (well, and open admissions from certain providers that this is the case) that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs.

As stated previously...

Health Insurance Companies Say That They Plan To Raise Premiums Significantly Because Of The New Health Care Reform Law

I say that providers are starting to rethink and redesign care processes to cut costs and you retort with an article blaming 1.3% and 2% of the costs of a couple of individual market Aetna plans on richer benefits? Turing test fail?

you really do suck at this.

You said...

...preliminary evidence that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs.

I showed you proof that providers are in fact INCREASING costs, specifically because of the new law.

The FAIL is strong in you. Opie-wan.

 

[Lakhota]

Health Insurance Companies Say That They Plan To Raise Premiums Significantly Because Of The New Health Care Reform Law

What else would anyone expect from greedy, profit-driven private health insurance companies? They need to have the hell regulated out of them!

 

[Conservative]

Health Insurance Companies Say That They Plan To Raise Premiums Significantly Because Of The New Health Care Reform Law

What else would anyone expect from greedy, profit-driven private health insurance companies? They need to have the hell regulated out of them!

yeah... cause that worked soooo fucking well everywhere else.

 

[Greenbeard]

you really do suck at this.

You said...

...preliminary evidence that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs.

I showed you proof that providers are in fact INCREASING costs, specifically because of the new law.

Ah, I suppose I should've started with an introduction to the lingo for the uninitiated. A provider is someone or something that delivers health services (a physician, a hospital, etc). They deal primarily with health care. A payer or insurer deals with a financial product, namely health insurance.

When I (or CMS actuaries, for that matter) talk about provider behavior, we're talking about those responsible for the processes of care people are buying. If they're improving the quality of those and reducing costs in the process, then care itself is being delivered for less money. That could mean reducing readmissions/rehospitalizations, or curbing CT scan volume, or any number of other things. That's what actual health care reform looks like: reforming the way care is delivered to improve quality and ultimately lower the costs of achieving a given level of quality (i.e. increase value). Incidentally, that's the part of the ACA the CMS actuaries don't cover in their analysis.

Premiums for a payer are a different beast. For example, you can see large premium increases even as growth in national health expenditures (i.e. the subject of the CMS actuaries' paper) nears record lows because premiums are dependent on a number of things, not least of which is the composition of the risk pool. If a 1-2% premium increase one year to add preventive benefits is the biggest complaint you've got, then you're in pretty good shape.

 

[kaz]

Health Insurance Companies Say That They Plan To Raise Premiums Significantly Because Of The New Health Care Reform Law

What else would anyone expect from greedy, profit-driven private health insurance companies? They need to have the hell regulated out of them!

Imagine, their costs go up and they raise prices. That's just whacked...

 

[Conservative]

you really do suck at this.

You said...

...preliminary evidence that provider behavior is already beginning to change in favor of new care processes to cut costs.

I showed you proof that providers are in fact INCREASING costs, specifically because of the new law.

Ah, I suppose I should've started with an introduction to the lingo for the uninitiated. A provider is someone or something that delivers health services (a physician, a hospital, etc). They deal primarily with health care. A payer or insurer deals with a financial product, namely health insurance.

When I (or CMS actuaries, for that matter) talk about provider behavior, we're talking about those responsible for the processes of care people are buying. If they're improving the quality of those and reducing costs in the process, then care itself is being delivered for less money. That could mean reducing readmissions/rehospitalizations, or curbing CT scan volume, or any number of other things. That's what actual health care reform looks like: reforming the way care is delivered to improve quality and ultimately lower the costs of achieving a given level of quality (i.e. increase value). Incidentally, that's the part of the ACA the CMS actuaries don't cover in their analysis.

Premiums for a payer are a different beast. For example, you can see large premium increases even as growth in national health expenditures (i.e. the subject of the CMS actuaries' paper) nears record lows because premiums are dependent on a number of things, not least of which is the composition of the risk pool. If a 1-2% premium increase one year to add preventive benefits is the biggest complaint you've got, then you're in pretty good shape.

the only thing that matters to the vast majority of Americans in regards to this issue.

Game.

 

[Immanuel]

you really do suck at this.

You said...


I showed you proof that providers are in fact INCREASING costs, specifically because of the new law.

Ah, I suppose I should've started with an introduction to the lingo for the uninitiated. A provider is someone or something that delivers health services (a physician, a hospital, etc). They deal primarily with health care. A payer or insurer deals with a financial product, namely health insurance.

When I (or CMS actuaries, for that matter) talk about provider behavior, we're talking about those responsible for the processes of care people are buying. If they're improving the quality of those and reducing costs in the process, then care itself is being delivered for less money. That could mean reducing readmissions/rehospitalizations, or curbing CT scan volume, or any number of other things. That's what actual health care reform looks like: reforming the way care is delivered to improve quality and ultimately lower the costs of achieving a given level of quality (i.e. increase value). Incidentally, that's the part of the ACA the CMS actuaries don't cover in their analysis.

Premiums for a payer are a different beast. For example, you can see large premium increases even as growth in national health expenditures (i.e. the subject of the CMS actuaries' paper) nears record lows because premiums are dependent on a number of things, not least of which is the composition of the risk pool. If a 1-2% premium increase one year to add preventive benefits is the biggest complaint you've got, then you're in pretty good shape.

the only thing that matters to the vast majority of Americans in regards to this issue.

Game.

Exactly, the only thing the people care about is the cost to them.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Barack Obama is a better man than Bush and Clinton were and a better President than Bush.

Course that's not saying much. Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history.

 

[Conservative]

Barack Obama is a better man than Bush and Clinton were and a better President than Bush.

Course that's not saying much. Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history.

everyone is entitled to an opinion. Doesn't make it fact though.

 

[Lakhota]

Barack Obama is a better man than Bush and Clinton were and a better President than Bush.

Course that's not saying much. Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history.

Well said.

 

[Greenbeard]

the only thing that matters to the vast majority of Americans in regards to this issue.

Then why have you spent pages now focusing on national health expenditures? For that matter, why even bring up the CMS actuaries' paper if that's all you're interested in?

 

[Conservative]

the only thing that matters to the vast majority of Americans in regards to this issue.

Then why have you spent pages now focusing on national health expenditures? For that matter, why even bring up the CMS actuaries' paper if that's all you're interested in?

mostly to piss you off.

 

[Dr.House]

the only thing that matters to the vast majority of Americans in regards to this issue.

Then why have you spent pages now focusing on national health expenditures? For that matter, why even bring up the CMS actuaries' paper if that's all you're interested in?

Perhaps you missed his words "in regards to this issue"...

Strange, because you even quoted it...

 

[dcbl]

 

[FA_Q2]

What's really scary for the Republicans is that the economy is going to be in full recovery mode next year.

WOW. I don't think ANYONE at all is proposing that. We are nowhere near recovery and actually close to falling AGAIN. What could possible give you such a positive outlook when there is nothing that would suggest such a thing is going to happen. Face it, you man must deal with running in a failing economy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Duh, ain't that part of the thrust behind health care reform - to control costs?

Are you kidding? Obama Care doesn't lower costs. It's going to raise them while at the same time it diminishes the quality of service. Obama Care was never about "fixing" health care costs...it was about taking a giant step towards universal health care. If they'd really wanted to lower costs they would have included tort reform but that was off the table right from the start because of all the $ that the trial lawyers sent Obama's way during the '08 election.

If you want to learn how to reduce costs, study the French healthcare system. It is a combination of public and private insurance, and they have cost savings build in....and they cover everyone....

The French Lesson In Health Care

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

Ohhhh, France came in first!! I guess that closes it.

I grow tired of this obvious left falsehood. There is far more than those simple statistics that need to be addressed. Fact is, some of the best healthcare in the entire world can be had here in the US. The problem is cost and quality in the low end of the scale, not the overall quality of the healthcare available to the majority of these nations citizens. Each one of those bogus statistics fails to acknowledge the reasons WHY we are suffering them. You ASSUME that it is due to healthcare received when, in fact, most of the time healthcare has little to nothing to do with it. Infant mortality? You meant that statistic that has ZERO standard of measure casing all countries to calculate it differently. Or how about life expectancy? Do you know what the number one cause of death in this country is? Let me give you a hint, instead of healthcare it is wholly due to lifestyle. Something else that is involved in the infant mortality rate as well as our lifestyle choices affect early birth thereby increasing infant mortality. The number of doctors is another meaningless statistic as it fails to address how that is actually affecting the availability. Waiting times to see a doctor is far more valuable. I don't know how France is in this regard so I can't say whether they are better than we are in this specific area. We could use more doctors here but there are things that we could do in this area though. Things that were not addressed in the Obamacare bill that should have been.

 

[Conservative]

What's really scary for the Republicans is that the economy is going to be in full recovery mode next year.

Administration Kicks Off "Recovery Summer" with Groundbreakings and Events Across the Country

 

[Dr.House]

What's really scary for the Republicans is that the economy is going to be in full recovery mode next year.

You said that last year....

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh yes, and he did get bin laden too, what a lucky fucker

You know that is one thing I will give him credit for. I have to believe that his was the final word as to whether or not to send the team on the mission. I do think he deserves credit for that accomplishment.

Immie

agreed. For giving SEAL TEAM 6 the green light, certainly he deserves credit. But not for the actual kill, as many liberals seem to profess.

He gets far more credit than simply giving the green light. Military operations are more than one simple run and gun. There was planning, putting the resources in the right place at the right time, a general policy that fosters the operation in the first place, a willingness to ignore Iran's desires and get him against their knowledge/will and an entire host of other things that I can't even think of at the moment. Obama may not have been intimately involved in each stage/decision but I can guarantee that he was more involved than the average person thinks. He was the commander at the time and therefore deserves the full credit for the outcome.

Well fulfilled uh...one promise since in office. That being socialized medicine.

We may have taken a step in that direction but what we got is nothing like even a whisper of socialized medicine. Instead, we got the worst possible outcome: capitalist companies with a captive consumer. That breaks the intent of a capitalist system and is the wrong direction no matter where you are in the political spectrum. The only reason it *might* be a step toward single payer is because it may well fail leaving the only solution a single payer system.

Ok we get it...the stuff Obama did is bad and the stuff he didn't do is your wet dream. No matter what he does you guys won't like it. Like Afganistan, now we are supposed to take repubs seriously when they use expanding Afganistan as a bad thing. Repubs were for it before Obama came in now they changed their minds.

See the pattern? Obama does it = bad even if it's the things they previously wanted.

No, bad is bad and good is good. Unless you can actually point to something then this is bunk bullshit. Who said escalating Afghanistan was bad? Who is fighting that?


As a matter of fact, many of those opposing the escalation are hypocrites on the left that supported Obama's assertion that Iraq was bad because we should have been focusing on Afghanistan (which is true, I stand by his statement) but criticized Obama as soon as he took office because he had not ended these wars yet. Afghanistan is one of the very few things that Obama is doing correctly.

Things were different for me under Bush. I supported President Bush but in the end, I thought he was one of the worst Presidents we had ever had if not THE worst and quite frankly, I don't think (except for in spending habits) President Obama has fallen as far as President Bush did and quite frankly, I don't think it is possible for him to do so.

Immie

I don't know, I tend to think that Obama is actually worse. It seems to me that Bush harmed our nation greatly. I think that we will feel that pain for 1-2 decades before his screw-up's go away. Obama, on the other hand, might very well have caused damage that will be felt twice that long. That is the problem with some of this experimental legislation, it NEVER goes away. Even if it a complete screw-up.

I loathe Bush and what he did to politics and America. With us or against us...Terrorist Sympathizers...Valerie Plame...etc. Bush was aweful and Repubs played in the band on the deck of Titanic until it sunk completely. Once America was in the shitter then they all gathered around to pretend they never were in the band. ptooey!

And Obama is different how? He is pushing the EXACT same attitude. That was one of Bush's worst mistakes, eclipsed only by war. The division in this country is poison and only getting worse. Bush created this idiocy. Obama is continuing it.

And before you go off on a tangent, yes, the entirety of congress is doing the exact same thing. Tea Partiers, republicans and democrats alike have bought Bush's bullshit and are running with it.

 

[Lakhota]

Did Bush get credit for Saddam? Did Bush deserve credit for Saddam? Would the U.S. and the world be better off with Saddam still in power?