ObamaCare truth coming out

[ISASO]

I have to assume no one is surprised by the truth coming out after this POS legislation was passed.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/02/morning-bell-obamacares-true-costs-coming-to-light/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Remember how President Barack Obama promised that his health care plan would reduce the deficit and put us on a path towards fiscal responsibility? Remember how Congress kept gaming the system to come up with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score that could justify those claims? Well, now that Obamacare has become (hopefully only temporarily) the law of the land, the CBO is singing a slightly different tune. Last Friday CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote on his blog:

The central challenge is straightforward and stark: The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond.

In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. In fact, CBO estimated that the health legislation will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (which CBO defines as the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care) by nearly $400 billion during the 2010-2019 period. Looking further ahead, CBO estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the following decade—if the provisions of the legislation remain unchanged throughout that entire period.

And there is ample evidence that the CBO may be underestimating Obamacare's true costs.

According to one recent estimate, Obamacare will add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the decade following. No wonder support for the repeal of Obamacare continues to grow.

[WstateU]

Obama to huddle with Democrats on protecting his signature health care law

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-to-huddle-with-democrats-on-protecting-his-signature-health-care-law/ar-BBxSwNn?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Dems ‘huddling’…

[SHOCKvalue]

As someone who is actually personally subject to the totally unsubsidized side of ACA/Obamacare, I award two middle fingers to this economic clusterfark, and it's roughly tripling to quadrupling of that portion of health insurance market in which I reside, with respect to premiums and deductibles.

To those who enjoy an ACA subsidy - you're welcome for the welfare-style handout. Either get a better job or stop having kids you can't afford.

[Play Angry]

As someone who is actually personally subject to the totally unsubsidized side of ACA/Obamacare, I award two middle fingers to this economic clusterfark, and it's roughly tripling to quadrupling of that portion of health insurance market in which I reside, with respect to premiums and deductibles.

To those who enjoy an ACA subsidy - you're welcome for the welfare-style handout. Either get a better job or stop having kids you can't afford.

Yep. Disaster for families with one or more earners that are self-employed.

[ShockdaWorld]

As someone who is actually personally subject to the totally unsubsidized side of ACA/Obamacare, I award two middle fingers to this economic clusterfark, and it's roughly tripling to quadrupling of that portion of health insurance market in which I reside, with respect to premiums and deductibles.

To those who enjoy an ACA subsidy - you're welcome for the welfare-style handout. Either get a better job or stop having kids you can't afford.

Maybe you should learn to do a better job...of relying on others to pay your way.

[ShockingButTrue]

As someone who is actually personally subject to the totally unsubsidized side of ACA/Obamacare, I award two middle fingers to this economic clusterfark, and it's roughly tripling to quadrupling of that portion of health insurance market in which I reside, with respect to premiums and deductibles.

To those who enjoy an ACA subsidy - you're welcome for the welfare-style handout. Either get a better job or stop having kids you can't afford.

... you Deplorables can just kiss my a--!!! ; D

[shockmonster]

The problem with health care is that subsidies have always been give because health care could not be denied to anyone who showed up at the ER. So we have always been paying for it. I remember a state legislator of the town we lived at the time (1990) say that health care was the biggest problem on the horizon for state government. So we have been paying for the incoming catastrophe for a long time. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[MoValley John]

The problem with health care is that subsidies have always been give because health care could not be denied to anyone who showed up at the ER. So we have always been paying for it. I remember a state legislator of the town we lived at the time (1990) say that health care was the biggest problem on the horizon for state government. So we have been paying for the incoming catastrophe for a long time. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Where did the chickens go in the first place?

[im4wsu]

The first problem with healthcare is that it is the only major expense that people have that they do not even know the cost before they receive the service. Because of this important fact, there really is no free market competition. That lack of competition results in a virtual monopoly for the providers ($50 aspirins and $2.50 for each latex glove).

The second major problem is that too many people conflate the cost of healthcare with the cost of insurance. They are not the same. Nor should they be. Insurance should be for the catastrophic, like auto or homeowners or general liability or errors & ommissions. Health insurance should not be for the routine office visit or wellness care. Those routine expenses should be self-funded and paid out of pocket (see below for dental insurance example). In insurance, "claims is claims". Ultimately, at the end of the day, the insurance company must collect sufficient premiums from those insured to pay for all of the claims eligible for payment under the policy plus the cost of sales/administration/overhead/profit. If they don't collect enough, they go out of business and there is no insurance available.

The third major problem is the government establishing programs that provide healthcare and then, year by year, limiting the amount expended on providng the mandated care, thereby shifting the costs to other sectors (think Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).

Dental Insurance Example. Assume that routine teeth cleaning is going to cost $100/year. There are two ways to pay that $100 cost. First is to purchase dental insurance. In order to pay the $100 and the cost of obtaining the insurance (sales) and administration (claim processing) and insurance overhead & profit (tiny, but should be included), let's say the total is $115. So you're paying 15% for the convenience of not having to write a check.

For the major dental work, the "catastrophic," most dental insurance pays 80% for the extractions, root canal, etc., but only 50% of the crowns, bridges, dentures. And then the total overall amount the insurance will pay is limited to $500, $1,000 or $1,500 per year. And the dentist is under no obligation to write off the balance (like medicare or HMO or PPO health plans). So when you're stuck with a $4,000 bill, the insurance will pay only $1,000 and the insured population ultimately pays $1,150 for that $1,000 insurance benefit and then must pay the other $3,000 to the dentist.

What a bargain. Dental insurance is a ripoff. Use your Medical Savings Account for dental costs. Same for vision.

[pogo]

Where did the chickens go in the first place?

They crossed the road. The quick agile ones lived....the others not so much.

[SHOCKvalue]

Where did the chickens go in the first place?

They traveled across the lane.

[SHOCKvalue]

The first problem with healthcare is that it is the only major expense that people have that they do not even know the cost before they receive the service. Because of this important fact, there really is no free market competition. That lack of competition results in a virtual monopoly for the providers ($50 aspirins and $2.50 for each latex glove).

I've been saying this for forever to anyone who wants to listen during a discussion on the state of US healthcare. Unfortunately, unless they have some grasp of basic economics you just get a deer in the headlights look in return.

We delight in shoving certain borderline useless liberal arts concepts down the throats of our students, but haven't yet figured out that some instruction in basic economics (for knowing how the world works), a brief understanding of time-value of money (for mortgages and retirement investment use), and an overview of financial ledgers (so you can... you know... balance your checkbook and all) just might have some real-world veracity.

The second major problem is that too many people conflate the cost of healthcare with the cost of insurance. They are not the same. Nor should they be. Insurance should be for the catastrophic, like auto or homeowners or general liability or errors & ommissions. Health insurance should not be for the routine office visit or wellness care. Those routine expenses should be self-funded and paid out of pocket (see below for dental insurance example). In insurance, "claims is claims". Ultimately, at the end of the day, the insurance company must collect sufficient premiums from those insured to pay for all of the claims eligible for payment under the policy plus the cost of sales/administration/overhead/profit. If they don't collect enough, they go out of business and there is no insurance available.

Also another perspective I have argued as well. (Are we brothers from another mother?)

Healthcare insurance should ALL be catastrophic in nature, as opposed to full service. That's one of the primary problems with the ACA. It forced a high level of minimum coverage, so everyone in the country, regardless of needs or budget, is essentially forced to buy into a fairly robust coverage umbrella.

Said another way, health insurance should be structured and utilized more like say homeowners or auto insurance. There for you when you REALLY need to make a claim for the unexpected, but not there when you need the house painted, or the oil changed in your car.

[ShockBand]

I've been saying this for forever to anyone who wants to listen during a discussion on the state of US healthcare. Unfortunately, unless they have some grasp of basic economics you just get a deer in the headlights look in return.

We delight in shoving certain borderline useless liberal arts concepts down the throats of our students, but haven't yet figured out that some instruction in basic economics (for knowing how the world works), a brief understanding of time-value of money (for mortgages and retirement investment use), and an overview of financial ledgers (so you can... you know... balance your checkbook and all) just might have some real-world veracity.



Also another perspective I have argued as well. (Are we brothers from another mother?)

Healthcare insurance should ALL be catastrophic in nature, as opposed to full service. That's one of the primary problems with the ACA. It forced a high level of minimum coverage, so everyone in the country, regardless of needs or budget, is essentially forced to buy into a fairly robust coverage umbrella.

Said another way, health insurance should be structured and utilized more like say homeowners or auto insurance. There for you when you REALLY need to make a claim for the unexpected, but not there when you need the house painted, or the oil changed in your car.

This is where I think the concierge model for your normal and routine things coupled with insurance against the catastrophic cases is something that makes sense. But how much would the insurance companies fight it? In concierge medicine you subscribe directly with your provider. I also would be curious as to what premiums might be for a policy that only covers items that go over that certain high threshold. Surely some actuarial bean counter out there has run the figures on this.

Also, should it all be decoupled from employment?

[ShockTalk]

I've been saying this for forever to anyone who wants to listen during a discussion on the state of US healthcare. Unfortunately, unless they have some grasp of basic economics you just get a deer in the headlights look in return.

We delight in shoving certain borderline useless liberal arts concepts down the throats of our students, but haven't yet figured out that some instruction in basic economics (for knowing how the world works), a brief understanding of time-value of money (for mortgages and retirement investment use), and an overview of financial ledgers (so you can... you know... balance your checkbook and all) just might have some real-world veracity.



Also another perspective I have argued as well. (Are we brothers from another mother?)

Healthcare insurance should ALL be catastrophic in nature, as opposed to full service. That's one of the primary problems with the ACA. It forced a high level of minimum coverage, so everyone in the country, regardless of needs or budget, is essentially forced to buy into a fairly robust coverage umbrella.

Said another way, health insurance should be structured and utilized more like say homeowners or auto insurance. There for you when you REALLY need to make a claim for the unexpected, but not there when you need the house painted, or the oil changed in your car.

Agree, but I have no problem with preventive coverage because most people would not utilize it otherwise.

I also believe everyone should go into one pool. Another point (that's not going to happen) is ratings by lifestyle. I'm tried of paying higher premiums for others lazy lifestyle or, at the other end, more "adventurous" living. Blanket coverage for everyone at one price does not encourage people to do things that will help lower the cost of health care.

[MoValley John]

Alan Alda had polio.