The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court - Page 106 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court

...

Page 106 of 1027

First

6 56 86 96 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 116 126 156 206 306 606

Last

Page 106 of 1027

First

6 56 86 96 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 116 126 156 206 306 606

Last

05-23-2013 , 04:00 PM

#2626

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

05-23-2013 , 04:10 PM

#2627

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Yeah trumpeting one state like it means something is dishonest or dumb. Feel free to choose one

State #2 is in:

http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/...nt-rate-shock/

05-23-2013 , 04:15 PM

#2628

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

The rates in Covered California range from 2 percent above to 29 percent below that benchmark.

This is terrible news somehow.

05-23-2013 , 04:22 PM

#2629

dth123451

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 15,502

Easiest rate crisis ever

05-23-2013 , 05:21 PM

#2630

Barcalounger

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,456

Quote:

Originally Posted by neg3sd

In the last 50 years, healthcare went from 5% of the economy to 20% of the economy. Nearly half the time it was under a Republican administration. Both parties were for managed care. Only now Obama has increased the rate of healthcare cost greater than the Republicans.

I'm not sure I can read this in a way that makes sense.

I own a small company. Our group rates jumped 37% a few years ago, and this was before the ACA was passed. Now that it is being implemented, we have early returns on the state exchanges showing a slower rise or drop in prices. something, something, grrr obama?

05-23-2013 , 05:32 PM

#2631

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

My boss at the 20 person company I worked for was freaking out about her insurance rate increases in 2007. Thanks Obama!

But hey again, I've got cheap corporate insurance. So you can all go straight to hell. Rubio 2016!

05-23-2013 , 05:37 PM

#2632

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Like, here is an article from July of last year in which dumb lying health insurance people said premiums would go up 50 to 70 percent.

http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/...ice-president/

They were all lying. Hint for conservatives: when it comes to health care, the people you listen to lie all the time. They are able to lie because you do not exhibit any critical thinking and do not understand the health insurance market or PPACA.

FWIW this chick I know who sells insurance told me the same thing. She said minimum 30% increase at her company.

05-23-2013 , 05:45 PM

#2633

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

I mean they're gonna have to start covering new patients with cancer and the aids, seems logical that rates would rise.

05-23-2013 , 06:20 PM

#2634

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Hey Ike,

At your convenience, please let me know which states I should look at so as to not 'cherry pick' in looking at premium levels on state run insurance exchanges.

I mean, I'm trying to find a single example of premium explosion of the type that you and your similarly misinformed conservative brethren have been frothing about for years, but all I seem to come up with are exchanges offering better coverage for less money. Thanks Obama!

Like, here's Vermont:

http://vtdigger.org/2013/04/01/state...ance-exchange/

Quote:

“These are proposed rates, and at first blush the rates are comparable to current insurance rates,” she said. “There has been a lot of speculation previously that rates in the exchange would be significantly higher, and we’re not seeing that in the initial filing.”

In Oregon, same exact thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/two-states-201...193815182.html

Do you ever get even a little embarrassed about being so wrong all the time?

05-23-2013 , 06:24 PM

#2635

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Back to the other point, Republicans are so hilariously wrong about everything because they actively listen to idiots and actively expel legitimate experts from their thought processes.

They knew the polls were wrong, something unskewing, SANDY CHANGED EVERYTHING because they chose to listen to idiots who don't actually understand polling. Similarly they just absolutely knew Obamacare would fail because the uninformed morans in right wing media have been assuming that conclusion for years. When you can get your information from a legitimate expert who has spent his or her life in a particular field and instead choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krackahack, you're going to be disappointed by reality.

05-23-2013 , 07:33 PM

#2636

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashington

I mean they're gonna have to start covering new patients with cancer and the aids, seems logical that rates would rise.

mandate tho

05-23-2013 , 08:42 PM

#2637

neg3sd

banned

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3,335

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barcalounger

This 37% increase may been in anticipation of ACA.

05-23-2013 , 08:56 PM

#2638

neg3sd

banned

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3,335

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1305298

Quote:

Between 1950 and 2011, real GDP per capita grew at an average of 2.0% per year, while real national health care expenditures per capita grew at 4.4% per year. The gap between the two rates of growth — 2.4% per year — resulted in the share of the GDP related to health care spending increasing from 4.4% in 1950 to 17.9% in 2011.

05-23-2013 , 09:04 PM

#2639

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Quote:

Originally Posted by neg3sd

This 37% increase may been in anticipation of ACA.

This is what...oh never mind. gg.

05-23-2013 , 09:24 PM

#2640

Justin A

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 9,010

Pretty surprised at WA and CA rates so far, but it's great news. Although looking at the rates I'm surprised it's not a rate shock. I guess CA and WA already had high rates?

05-23-2013 , 09:28 PM

#2641

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Oregon and Washington didn't. Vermont and CA did.

As it turns out, people who have devoted their lives to this subject were right (shocking I know): forcing tons of young and healthy people to get health insurance is really effective in fighting adverse selection.

05-24-2013 , 08:02 AM

#2642

Justin A

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 9,010

My expectations all along were that the costs in the individual market would increase to be roughly similar to costs in the small group market. SG is currently guaranteed issue with a high participation rate, just like the individual market is expected to be. In the states I'm most familiar with, this change would be a huge increase in rates for individuals.

05-24-2013 , 11:41 AM

#2643

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Well, and this issue has been one the ikes' of the world have struggled with, but when we talk about rates rising it is very important to distinguish whether we mean

"What is the cheapest available plan?" (that, P.S., a significant portion of people will not be allowed to buy)

or

"What is the cost difference between a comparable pre-ACA plan and post-ACA plan?"

Because there will definitely be "rate increases" in states that had people selling awful barebones plans, simply because you won't be allowed to sell plans below a certain threshold.

The expectation, and I mean expectation back in 1990, that a plan of this sort will produce an increase in aggregate spending on health insurance, but an even larger increase in aggregate coverage provided.

05-24-2013 , 11:48 AM

#2644

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

They are already getting super excited to run in 2014 against Obamacare's disastrous implementation. It's a "train wreck!"

But what you just said is exactly the problem. Running against the ACA is a great idea if implementation goes poorly, but a terrible idea if it goes well.

Now, I have no idea how implementation will go because it's in the future and **** is complicated. But Republicans have a much bigger issue: they won't ever be able to evaluate it. Not just prospectively, not while it's ongoing, and not in retrospect. If it's a disaster, Drudge and Rush will blare from the rooftops about how Obamacare is a disaster.

But if it's not a disaster... Drudge and Rush will blare that from the rooftops about how Obamacare is a disaster. If some enterprising conservative flack or pundit notices that and tries to tell someone that their messaging should soften on the ACA, that RINO squish is getting kicked right the **** out.

Last edited by FlyWf; 05-24-2013 at 12:01 PM.

05-24-2013 , 03:10 PM

#2645

Cuban B

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,765

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

They are already getting super excited to run in 2014 against Obamacare's disastrous implementation. It's a "train wreck!"

Might be hard to sell if california pulls it off:

Quote:

Obamacare got some very good news on Thursday.

In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they’re lower than anyone thought.

As always, Sarah Kliff has the details. The California exchange will have 13 insurance options, and the heavy competition appears to be driving down prices. The most affordable silver-level plan is charging $276-a-month. The second-most affordable plan is charging $294. And all this is before subsidies. Someone making twice the poverty line, say, will only pay $104-a-month.

Sparer plans are even cheaper. A young person buying the cheapest “bronze”-level plan will pay $172 — and that, again, is before any subsidies.

Quote:

Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.

Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.

Hey look we successfully sabotaged ACA in all these red states! Obamacare tyranny! Vote GOP.

Last edited by Cuban B; 05-24-2013 at 03:15 PM.

05-24-2013 , 03:39 PM

#2646

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

If Texans refuse to look at anything in Europe for positive examples, they'll have a pretty easy time doing the same with Cahhh-lee-fornia.

05-24-2013 , 10:29 PM

#2647

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Sorry conservatives, reality strikes again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...for-obamacare/

05-25-2013 , 08:34 AM

#2648

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

I have been pretty skeptical about any insurance pricing efficiencies via the exchanges, but the preliminary evidence does seems to be indicating that the gold/silver/bronze tiering of plans is really forcing the insurance companies to sharpen their pencils as they price their plans. Kinda what the technocrats said would be the case, what do you know.

05-25-2013 , 11:55 AM

#2649

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/us...f=general&_r=0

Quote:

Bee Moorhead, the executive director of Texas Impact, an interfaith group that favors the expansion of coverage, said: “A lot of people will come in, file applications and find they are not eligible for help because they are too poor. We’ll have to tell them, ‘If only you had a little more money, you could get insurance subsidies, but because you are so poor, you cannot get anything.’

“That’s an odd message, a very strange message. And if people are sick, they will be really upset.”

In Atlanta, Amanda Ptashkin, the director of outreach and advocacy at Georgians for a Healthy Future, a consumer group, said: “Hundreds of thousands of people with incomes below the poverty level would be eligible for Medicaid if the state decided to move forward with the expansion of Medicaid. As things now stand, they will not be eligible for anything. What do we do for them? What do we tell them?”

Jonathan E. Chapman, the executive director of the Louisiana Primary Care Association, which represents more than two dozen community health centers, described the situation in his state this way: “If the breadwinner in a family of four works full time at a job that pays $14 an hour and the family has no other income, he or she will be eligible for insurance subsidies. But if they make $10 an hour, they will not be eligible for anything.”

Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said: “In states that do not expand Medicaid, some of the neediest people will not get coverage. But people who are just above the poverty line or in the middle class can get subsidized coverage. People will be denied assistance because they don’t make enough money. Trying to explain that will be a nightmare.”

Gonna be a cluster-****, that's for sure.