The Economic Ramifications of Obamacare

[waldo]

The whole affordable care act is a horrible piece of legislation that does nothing but centralize federal power and aggrandize government.

does nothing but??? I thought you just acknowledged the current uninsured number of Americans (~ 53 million) will be reduced to ~27 million.

does nothing but???

from the recently released 'Centers for Medicare and Medicaid' 2nd annual report:

The Affordable Care Act - A Stronger Medicare Program in 2012

February 1, 2013 - This second annual report details how millions of seniors and people with disabilities with Medicare continued to experience lower costs on prescription drugs and improved benefits in 2012 because of the Affordable Care Act.

Since the law's enactment, 6.1 million Americans with Medicare who reached the Part D coverage gap also known as the "donut hole," have saved over $5.7 billion on prescription drugs. Drug savings of $2.5 billion in 2012 are higher than the $2.3 billion in savings for 2011. In 2012, people with Medicare in the "donut hole," received a 50 percent discount on covered brand name drugs and 14 percent discount on generic drugs. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, coverage for both brand name and generic drugs will continue to increase over time until the coverage gap is closed.

The Affordable Care Act also removed barriers for people with Medicare to get preventive services, many of which previously required cost-sharing for patients. In 2012, many recommended preventive services were offered to people with Medicare, with no deductibles or co-pays, meaning that cost is no longer a barrier for seniors and people with disabilities who want to stay healthy by detecting and treating health problems early. Use of preventive services has expanded among people with Medicare. In 2012 alone, an estimated 34.1 million people with Medicare benefited from Medicare's coverage of preventive services with no cost-sharing.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare program also performed well in several other areas in 2012:

- Compared to 2011, people with Medicare continued to pay moderate premiums for Medicare Part B benefits, which cover outpatient care, doctors' services, lab tests, durable medical supplies, and other services.

- Those who enrolled in Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans paid average premiums lower than what they paid in 2010, and they had access to a wide range of plan choices.

- New techniques were implemented to detect, prevent and fight health care fraud.

[Pliny]

flawed? No - the projection numbers are net overall and reflect the various movements; specifically, in the case of the 'employer' projection:

as an aside, I don't see how you arrived at a projection of 3 million (your, 'at this point') from the table graphic I provided... or what your source is for the 7 million number. But, again, the projections are net overall. Of course, its a fluid situation, one affected by budget changes... like the recent one in January that, as I interpret, has taken away some of those Obamacare/existing employer healthcare incentives. The CBO projection I offered is from March, 2012... I can't find anything more current.

happy? Considering single-payer wasn't going to fly, and as a 'first step'... if I was a thinking/caring American, I would be encouraged to realize that (ultimately) ~26 million more of my fellow Americans, previously uninsured, would have healthcare insurance coverage.

does nothing but??? I thought you just acknowledged the current uninsured number of Americans (~ 53 million) will be reduced to ~27 million.

At great expense to the nation and eventual poorer service you still accept 27 million uninsured people, to be heavily fined if they don't buy insurance, is acceptable?

Simply starting a HSA for every individual is way more rational than the convoluted find out what's in it after the fact Affordable care act.

[Pliny]

does nothing but???

from the recently released 'Centers for Medicare and Medicaid' 2nd annual report:

[/indent]

You can post all the rosy statistics you like from the government but $760 billion gone from medicare will sorely be missed at some point.

There are a few entangling candy "benefits" offered in Obamacare to ensure it's tentacles have the opportunity to become well secured in the health industry but I think once the true costs to the American economy and society start rolling in there's still a chance that a big axe will kill the beast. Sooner better than later.

[waldo]

At great expense to the nation and eventual poorer service you still accept 27 million uninsured people, to be heavily fined if they don't buy insurance, is acceptable?

this is now the second time you've personalized this... first, "that I'd be happy accepting the continued uninsured Americans", and now, that "I'd be accepting to it". As I said, if I was a thinking/caring American... I would rationalize it in terms of the alternative where ~53 million Americans would continue without healthcare insurance. One would think that, following your penchant for personalizing, you'd be dancing a jig since single payer was not, ultimately, pursued further... you know, your own rationalization.

but let's correct your numbers, since you continue to flaunt the penalty fine tax aspect: according to a recent joint U.S. CBO & JCT analysis, when looking at 2016 for example, when income level and percentage exemptions are factored, that 27 million number gets whittled back down to ~12 million Americans potentially being subject to a fine... a number which gets further reduced by additional granted exemptions (e.g. hardship) to an estimate of ~6 million Americans who will pay a penalty because they are uninsured. That ~6 million number includes uninsured dependents who will have the penalty paid on their behalf. Now, according to that prolific claimed American on MLW, its all about "choice"... in this circumstance, after factoring all exemptions, these ~6 million Americans will have chosen not to insure themselves (although a significant number of those, as dependents, will have had the decision made for them).

Simply starting a HSA for every individual is way more rational than the convoluted find out what's in it after the fact Affordable care act.

nonsense. You must be reading Dubya Bush (the "creator of HSA") era propaganda. Historically, why has there been such a feeble uptake by Americans (individually and employment based) of HSAs? When I read a 2010 stat from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, that only ~2% of more than the 200 million Americans with private insurance have opted for HSAs... I can only ask, is there a problem here, Pliny? Perhaps you could actually make a case for HSAs - you know, attempt to counter that plethora of criticism of HSAs. By the by... when all monies, effectively, go to premiums and high deductibles, isn't a HSavingsA a misnomer? Take your shot Pliny... rise above your continued unsubstantiated statements. Perhaps pay particular attention to the correlation between high-deductibles and persons choosing to put off seeking healthcare... what implications high-deductible insurance potentially has to the overall state of American healthcare.

[waldo]

You can post all the rosy statistics you like from the government but $760 billion gone from medicare will sorely be missed at some point.

rosy statistics??? Oh... you mean those inconvenient (for you) truths!

but really, c'mon Pliny - the elections over... that$760 actually $716 billion number has been so debunked. One would think you'd be the guy clamoring for efficiency based Medicare spending reductions to insurers and hospitals. Uhhh... weren't you for this, before you were against it? Oh, wait... that was Romney/Ryan!

[Pliny]

[/size]

rosy statistics??? Oh... you mean those inconvenient (for you) truths!

hahaha...good one!

but really, c'mon Pliny - the elections over... that$760 actually $716 billion number has been so debunked. One would think you'd be the guy clamoring for efficiency based Medicare spending reductions to insurers and hospitals. Uhhh... weren't you for this, before you were against it? Oh, wait... that was Romney/Ryan!

I'm against deception, waldo. Efficiency based medicare spending for efficiency based Affordable healthcare.....more chuckles.

Really, you are amazing. Supporting all the loser promulgations of government. Must be some kind of lobbiest yourself?

By the way what does "mostly false" mean? 716 Billion is going out of medicare and moved to Obamacare so it doesn't increase the deficit.

"In fact, the law limits payments to health care providers and insurers to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Lawmakers said they hoped the measures would improve care and efficiency"

What's mostly false is claiming 716 billion dollars isn't being cut "by limiting payments to health care providers and insurers". Lawmakers "hope" it will improve care and efficiency. More laughs.

[waldo]

I'm against deception, waldo. Efficiency based medicare spending for efficiency based Affordable healthcare.....more chuckles.

Really, you are amazing. Supporting all the loser promulgations of government. Must be some kind of lobbiest yourself?

yes..... more chuckles - at your expense! I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to revisit the U.S. Presidential election - you do know how that turned out right?

I'm quite certain you don't even realize the Ryan 2013 budget included these exact same $716 billion cuts to Medicare. Of course, Romney latched right onto it and it became one of the more egregious lies/disinformation that Romney/Ryan attacked Obama on. I expect you actually favour the Romney/Ryan particular brand of, as you say, "loser promulgation of government"... their particular brand of Medicare cuts, as detailed within the House Republicans FY 2013 budget (authored by Ryan); cuts that were to be realized through, "reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse." But you're ok with this flavour of Republican "efficiency cuts", hey Pliny?

of course, the related Romney/Ryan Medicare savings were targeted much differently... principally intended to be used to set up a Medicare voucher system, along with tax cuts. I bet you likee those intentions, hey Pliny?

but c'mon Pliny, the U.S. election is so, 'yesterday's news'!

[Pliny]

yes..... more chuckles - at your expense! I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to revisit the U.S. Presidential election - you do know how that turned out right?[/size]

I'm quite certain you don't even realize the Ryan 2013 budget included these exact same $716 billion cuts to Medicare. Of course, Romney latched right onto it and it became one of the more egregious lies/disinformation that Romney/Ryan attacked Obama on. I expect you actually favour the Romney/Ryan particular brand of, as you say, "loser promulgation of government"... their particular brand of Medicare cuts, as detailed within the House Republicans FY 2013 budget (authored by Ryan); cuts that were to be realized through, "reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse." But you're ok with this flavour of Republican "efficiency cuts", hey Pliny?

of course, the related Romney/Ryan Medicare savings were targeted much differently... principally intended to be used to set up a Medicare voucher system, along with tax cuts. I bet you likee those intentions, hey Pliny?

but c'mon Pliny, the U.S. election is so, 'yesterday's news'!

I would actually support the phasing out of medicare altogether. There has got to be a better way.

Only the US has any means to change its health care system. It's unfortunate the are taking the tack they are. All other western nations are more or less stuck with what they have. They aren't going to change until they become entirely

unsustainable at which point scenarios such as we see in Greece will be the norm. Of course it will take some

dictatorial intervention to set things straight. That means a total socialist state of some sort (left/right, your guess is as good as mine) but it may prove to be something of which even you do not approve.

[cybercoma]

I would actually support the phasing out of medicare altogether. There has got to be a better way.

Not having anything, until they come up with something better, certainly isn't the better way.