Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2015 6:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/19/2015 10:29:00 PM (view original):
You're saying the ACA isn't working. What would you do to lower costs?
If the goal is to make something more affordable, then wouldn't a logical first step be to figure out why it is so expensive in the first place?

"Follow the money".
Let's say that Obama put forward legislation that included specific terms that aimed to reduce health care costs. Would you support it?
11/20/2015 11:17 AM
It would depend on the terms.
11/20/2015 11:28 AM
What terms would you put forward to combat costs?
11/20/2015 11:35 AM
How the **** would I know?  There needs to be analysis performed on where all the massive amounts of money is going as it flows through the healthcare system.

The "specific terms" would be dependent upon the results of that analysis.

Are you too stupid to understand that, or are you just playing your usual "stubborn ***" game?

11/20/2015 11:54 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2015 11:54:00 AM (view original):
How the **** would I know?  There needs to be analysis performed on where all the massive amounts of money is going as it flows through the healthcare system.

The "specific terms" would be dependent upon the results of that analysis.

Are you too stupid to understand that, or are you just playing your usual "stubborn ***" game?

Well, the ACA contains specific provisions that aim to reduce costs. According to a paper put out by the Economist in March of this year, they are working.

You don't know that, though, because A) your understanding of the ACA comes from Fox News and Breitbart and B) you don't even know what could be done to reduce costs.

From the Economist:

Overall the CBO projects that, if the law is unchanged, net federal spending for the government’s main health-care programmes in 2039 will be 8% of GDP, about 15% less than had been projected in 2010. Projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between 2011-2020 have been revised downwards by $1.1 trillion. The government also claims that since 2011 some 50,000 fewer patients died in hospitals as a result of Obamacare.

Far from bankrupting the nation, as its critics predicted, Obamacare may be making medicine thriftier. Even so, health-care spending as a share of GDP is likely to rise over the next decade as Americans age. With the economy recovering this year, the total health-care bill is projected to grow by 6%. Hold the champagne, then, and not just because it is bad for you.

11/20/2015 12:31 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2015 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2015 11:54:00 AM (view original):
How the **** would I know?  There needs to be analysis performed on where all the massive amounts of money is going as it flows through the healthcare system.

The "specific terms" would be dependent upon the results of that analysis.

Are you too stupid to understand that, or are you just playing your usual "stubborn ***" game?

Well, the ACA contains specific provisions that aim to reduce costs. According to a paper put out by the Economist in March of this year, they are working.

You don't know that, though, because A) your understanding of the ACA comes from Fox News and Breitbart and B) you don't even know what could be done to reduce costs.

From the Economist:

Overall the CBO projects that, if the law is unchanged, net federal spending for the government’s main health-care programmes in 2039 will be 8% of GDP, about 15% less than had been projected in 2010. Projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between 2011-2020 have been revised downwards by $1.1 trillion. The government also claims that since 2011 some 50,000 fewer patients died in hospitals as a result of Obamacare.

Far from bankrupting the nation, as its critics predicted, Obamacare may be making medicine thriftier. Even so, health-care spending as a share of GDP is likely to rise over the next decade as Americans age. With the economy recovering this year, the total health-care bill is projected to grow by 6%. Hold the champagne, then, and not just because it is bad for you.

Dumbass.  I neither watch Fox News nor follow Brietbart.  But you wouldn't understand that because you struggle with the concept of people being capable of independent thinking and critical thought.

Also, your link does not work.  And the quote seems to only be talking about government spending and not an actual reduction of total healthcare costs.

11/20/2015 12:42 PM
You wouldn't know. You don't have a clue what would actually reduce costs.

Link


Quote:

Under the “fee-for-service” system every blood test, bandage or X-ray triggers a payment. Doctors are tempted to order lots of unnecessary procedures to pay for a new yacht or their children’s education. Obamacare introduced (or encouraged the adoption of) various tools to restrain all this. For example, health-care providers receive financial rewards for cutting costs and penalties for bad care, such as when patients have to be readmitted to hospital after they have been discharged or when they catch nasty infections in a clinic.
...
The health law encourages the use of “bundled payments”, where a hip replacement or a heart bypass generates a single fee, no matter how many tests are performed or how many complications arise. These bundles may also help to cut spending on drugs, says Paul Keckley of Navigant, a consultancy. When hospitals cannot simply charge extra for each pill, they are more likely to haggle for discounts with the drug firms that supply them.
...
New evidence from the journal Health Affairs suggests that hospitals grew more productive between 2002 and 2011—particularly after 2009 (see chart). Chapin White of the RAND Corporation says that the fall in Medicare spending in hospitals last year was worth $98 billion, for which Obamacare can take some credit.
 
11/20/2015 12:55 PM

LOL.

The health law encourages the use of “bundled payments”, where a hip replacement or a heart bypass generates a single fee, no matter how many tests are performed or how many complications arise. These bundles may also help to cut spending on drugs, says Paul Keckley of Navigant, a consultancy. When hospitals cannot simply charge extra for each pill, they are more likely to haggle for discounts with the drug firms that supply them.

Of course "bundled payments" would encourage hospitals to negotiate for lower fees from drug compnaies.  Lower cost to them = more profit made from the bundle.  And apparently no way to see a breakdown of how the cost of that bundle was determined.  Where's the assurance that those lowered costs would then make it all the way back to the insurance company, and then back to the insured?

It's the end-to-end process that needs to be examined, dumbass.  Not just a piece here and a piece there.

11/20/2015 1:13 PM
Holy ****, you're an idiot.

This stuff is waaaay over your head, tec.
11/20/2015 1:14 PM
I know, when having a heart bypass, I'd want the hospital/doctor to perform the minimum number of tests and fighting thru/ignoring complications to keep their profit up.
11/20/2015 1:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2015 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Holy ****, you're an idiot.

This stuff is waaaay over your head, tec.
YOU calling somebody else an idiot is laughable.

My healthcare costs for me and my family in 2016 are increasing by around 9% over what I've paid in 2015.  And for that, I'm getting higher co-pays, higher deductibles, and less coverage.

So please explain to me how Obamacare is reducing the cost of healthcare.  Use small words so that my idiot brain can comprehend the superiority of your intelligence.

11/20/2015 1:24 PM
Health insurance premiums will always go up. The ACA has helped slow the rise.
11/20/2015 1:42 PM
My 2016 premiums are up 10%, my max deductible went up 25%, my max out of pocket went up 25%. Copays all doubled. Co-insurance went from 10/90% to 15/85%. I'm not seeing anything go down either tec.


And I still need to pay an additional $150 a month to insure my spouse because she has a job.
11/20/2015 1:49 PM (edited)
Why would healthcare premiums always go up if Obamacare is magically reducing total healthcare costs?

Is that a flaw somewhere in the smoke and mirrors?

11/20/2015 1:47 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2015 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Why would healthcare premiums always go up if Obamacare is magically reducing total healthcare costs?

Is that a flaw somewhere in the smoke and mirrors?

The population is growing, a large percentage of the population is aging, and there are more people using medical care.

The ACA is helping to reduce healthcare costs but it isn't magic. From 1999-2004, health insurance premiums rose 72%. They rose 34% from 2004-2009. They rose 26% from 2009-2014.
11/20/2015 1:58 PM
◂ Prev 1...385|386|387|388|389...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.