CBO- Obamacare Will Cover More People at a Lower Cost Than We Expected

Search

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
In the series premiere of The Revolting Truth with Andrew Klavan, our cheerful host asks the really important questions about Obamacare - like is it based on lies or fantasy, and is the President's signature legislation actually the harbinger of Armageddon itself?

TRANSCRIPT:

I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

Now that the Obamacare sign up deadline has come and gone, and come and then gone again, and been delayed and then come, then suddenly without warning been decreed to be gone, and then returned and sort of snuck past under the radar and then — surprise! — popped up and has come and then gone... it’s time to take a fair, non-partisan look at the costs and benefits and even more enormous costs of the Affordable Care Act, to examine the administration’s claims for its signature domestic achievement and separate the lies from the distortions and fantasies.

For instance, the president recently ridiculed conservative concerns about the act by saying, “There are still no death panels. Armageddon has not arrived.” Let’s examine those statements. True? Or false? Or complete crap?

There is no Death Panel in Obamacare but there is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, 15 unelected bureaucrats who will employ the very latest in dartboards, graft and magic eight balls to determine whether your Medicare costs are affordable or you should be killed. Obamacare supporters point out that this is not like pushing our old people out to sea on ice floes, since global warming will melt all the ice floes and it’ll just be like taking a warm bath and then you’ll be dead.

As for whether Armageddon has arrived, while there have been wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes in diverse places, the moon has not yet turned to blood. So there’s something positive we can say about Obamacare.

But the president’s most important claims are that “the share of Americans with insurance is up and the growth of health care costs is down, and that’s good for our middle class and that’s good for our fiscal future.”

All of which would be absolutely true if it weren’t utterly false.
In fact, Obamacare has only insured a miniscule percentage of the previously uninsured, no one knows how many of those can actually pay for what they got, health care costs are soaring, and what’s left of the middle class is pretty well screwed. As for our fiscal future... oh look, how pretty, the moon just turned all red... Uh oh.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
5,579
Tokens
gotta love libtardville, as Rome burns their band plays on

didn't read the article, but I'm a "guessing" they're talking about the costs to the federal government, because everybody else's costs are skyrocketing

and I also suspect all those massive tax increases people are paying enables them to make such moronic statements

but if they weren't so damn stupid, we wouldn't be where we are

"so there you have it"



PS: I might add that they're simply intellectually dishonest in every position they take. Again, they have to be to take such positions, so we have yet another catch 22
You mean the tax increases you talk about in your thread about your client? Like the $1250 tax increase just because a person can't use their HSA to buy OTC drugs. Please explain that one to us Willie so I can then tell you how wrong you are AGAIN!!
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
The rats are spinning!! Lmao! Gotta love watching this.

As reliable as Ol faithful or Mariano Rivera. These partisan hacks are nothing if not predictable. Those of us who are objective and think Obamacare was not the solution to our horrid healthcare system, at least have the intellectual honesty to give credit where it's due, as well as pan it when the results suck.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
As reliable as Ol faithful or Mariano Rivera. These partisan hacks are nothing if not predictable. Those of us who are objective and think Obamacare was not the solution to our horrid healthcare system, at least have the intellectual honesty to give credit where it's due, as well as pan it when the results suck.

I'm legitimately curious who you think is objective down here.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,354
Tokens
Ask anyone who loves in Britain about the ugly realities of socialized medicine - "access to health care" doesn't mean patients actually receive it.

The loony left believes it can make the sun shine and stars twinkle. What a farce the modern Democrat party has become! :>(

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEL ZINBERG

The Doctor Won’t See You Now

Millions may get “insured” through Obamacare, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to see a physician.

20140414-jz.jpg


Proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) insist that the law will extend health insurance to millions, expand access to health care, and improve Americans’ overall health. But, as the New York Times recently reported, at least 20 percent of the new enrollees have not paid their premiums. They therefore do not really have insurance. But even for those enrollees paying premiums, having health insurance is not the same thing as getting good health care, or any health care. In fact, it doesn’t matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician.

Many Americans could lose their employer-provided insurance if firms decide that paying the ACA penalty—and maybe giving small raises to their employees—is cheaper than offering health insurance as a benefit of employment or reduce workers’ hours (the ACA does not mandate coverage for part-time employees). These newly uninsured workers will either have to enroll in Medicaid, if their income is low enough, or purchase a plan on one of the state and federal insurance exchanges. Those eligible for exchange subsidies may end up better off economically as their premiums will be so low, but both the exchange and Medicaid options are fraught with problems.

States are already struggling under huge budget deficits from their existing Medicaid programs. Since states lose federal funding if they adjust their Medicaid eligibility guidelines, their only option for reducing deficits is to cut already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates. Physicians are already reluctant to treat Medicaid patients under current rates that are a fraction of private and Medicare rates. Cutting reimbursements will exacerbate the physician-access problem and could lead to closures of so-called “safety-net” hospitals that care for many of the poor and uninsured. These hospitals have long depended on federal Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to offset the cost of caring for the uninsured. But the ACA severely cuts DSH payments on the assumption that the uninsured will gain either Medicaid or private insurance. If large numbers of patients remain uninsured, safety net hospitals’ financial difficulties will be compounded by their obligation to provide uncompensated care.

Those who do get coverage through the exchanges and pay their premiums will also struggle to get medical care. The ACA requires insurers to accept every patient regardless of risk, provide expansive benefits packages, and eliminate caps on lifetime benefits. Looking to control costs, most insurers are offering exchange plans that severely limit the number of doctors and hospitals patients can visit. Some state exchanges—including New York’s—don’t offer a single plan that covers visits to out-of-network doctors or hospitals. Many people will not be able to see the physicians who have treated them for years, use facilities providing the most appropriate treatment, or access care within a reasonable time and distance from their homes.

Some specialty hospitals have been excluded from all exchange plans.

If this scenario sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before, during the failed managed-care experiment of the 1990s. Patients and physicians quickly became disenchanted with the restrictions and bureaucratic complexity of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). At least patients had options then. They could avoid HMO restrictions by buying broader, more expensive insurance plans. Many plans available now on the state exchanges are highly restrictive, HMO-like networks.

Patient choice has been further compromised by the haphazard implementation of the exchanges. Patients have reported trouble determining which physicians will participate in which plans. Doctors, too, are often unaware whether they’re listed in particular insurance networks and what the reimbursement rates are. Many find themselves arbitrarily excluded from plans in which they had previously participated; others are getting listed on plans without their knowledge.

Worst of all, insurance coverage under the ACA is unlikely to improve health outcomes. The much-noted Oregon Medicaid-expansion study found that new Medicaid enrollees showed no improvement in health outcomes compared with the uninsured. Other studies have shown that Medicaid patients have worse outcomes compared with privately insured patients (though why this happens is not well understood). The health outcomes of many exchange patients will suffer as a result of not being able to see their regular physicians or access the most appropriate specialists and hospitals.

The drafters of the ACA presumably had noble intentions, but the law is failing in all of its intended goals. Unless the ACA is redrafted to provide insurance coverage that most physicians and hospitals will accept, many patients will find that when they need medical care, the doctor is not in.

Joel Zinberg is associate clinical professor of surgery at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City and is a trustee and past president of the New York County Medical Society.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
I'm legitimately curious who you think is objective down here.
I try to be, and think I succeed for the most part. I think You usually are, NFL trends generally is, Judge always, more so than anyone, Aki when he's not over the top name calling, DEAC when he comes down to this hellhole, Scott Carter can be at times. Vit was when he was here. Bleeding Purple. Wabash, Fletch. Choptalk. There are others who's names escape me right now, and I apologize for that. Objectivity doesn't mean you don't have leanings or preferences. Objectivity means you can credit or blame based on the issue, not the person or party every single damn time. Those types are useless, they just parrot their talking points, with no ability to see another side, or praise another side. Objective guys take things on more of an issue by issue, or person by person basis, and have no problem blasting the party they lean to when warranted, and praise those in the party they don't lean to when warranted. It's the ability to both praise and blast Obama, praise and blast Rand Paul, Christie, Hillary, etc, depending on the issue, not the party. Objective people can both blast Obamacare, and praise it, depending on what is reported.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
I try to be, and think I succeed for the most part. I think You usually are, NFL trends generally is, Judge always, more so than anyone, Aki when he's not over the top name calling, DEAC when he comes down to this hellhole, Scott Carter can be at times. Vit was when he was here. Bleeding Purple. Wabash, Fletch. Choptalk. There are others who's names escape me right now, and I apologize for that. Objectivity doesn't mean you don't have leanings or preferences. Objectivity means you can credit or blame based on the issue, not the person or party every single damn time. Those types are useless, they just parrot their talking points, with no ability to see another side, or praise another side. Objective guys take things on more of an issue by issue, or person by person basis, and have no problem blasting the party they lean to when warranted, and praise those in the party they don't lean to when warranted. It's the ability to both praise and blast Obama, praise and blast Rand Paul, Christie, Hillary, etc, depending on the issue, not the party. Objective people can both blast Obamacare, and praise it, depending on what is reported.

I appreciate you taking the time to give me an honest response. I haven't really been here long enough to agree or disagree confidently on the people you named but I absolutely agree with you on the latter part of your post.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,874
Tokens
Surprise: New Census Bureau changes to annual survey will obscure effects of ObamaCare

*****************************************************************************************

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/u...ealth-law-effects.html?_r=1&assetType=nyt_now

"An internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire included a “total revision to health insurance questions” and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured. Thus, officials said, it will be difficult to say how much of any change is attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a new survey instrument."


“We are expecting much lower numbers just because of the questions and how they are asked,” said Brett J. O’Hara, chief of the health statistics branch at the Census Bureau…


"Another Census Bureau paper said “it is coincidental and unfortunate timing” that the survey was overhauled just before major provisions of the health care law took effect. “Ideally,” it said, “the redesign would have had at least a few years to gather base line and trend data.”


:neenee:

As a reminder, one of the first things Obama did in 2009 when he took office was to shift the Census Bureau to the White House.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,874
Tokens
I try to be, and think I succeed for the most part.

This suggestion is laughable and preposterous.

You said that Bill Ayers was not a terrorist.

You also started this idiotic thread which contains a bunch of silly, misleading bullshit.

Probably because you're so "objective"
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,874
Tokens
A crucial factor in the current revision was an analysis of the characteristics of plans offered through the exchanges in 2014. Previously, CBO and JTC had expected that those plans’ characteristics would closely resemble the characteristics of employment-based plans throughout the projection period. However, the plans being offered through the exchanges this year appear to have, in general, lower payment rates for providers, narrower networks of providers, and tighter management of their subscribers’ use of health care than employment-based plans do


===========

Yes, the CBO realizes that ObamaCare plans are crappier than insurance plans generally, therefore the costs are lower than expected.

Keep clapping, idiots.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,449
Tokens
Im waiting to see the information that this will save people $2500 a year on coverage...
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,178
Tokens
Give me a big fat insurance break. This here anacoluthon, is the crap that those
there lazy liberal spew all the time. Yes all the time. THEY ARE DESPICABLE!

:ohno::ohno::hammerit:hammerit:hammerit:hammerit:missingte:missingte:103631605:toast:


 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,039
Tokens
Im waiting to see the information that this will save people $2500 a year on coverage...

Oh wait...yeah, when is this going to happen?

Signed,
Waiting
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,391
Tokens
Great!

So when do I get to read about all the unions and federal employees who made it a huge point to exempt themselves suddenly deciding to rush back into the program because it's just been so f'ing awesome for the consumer?
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
This suggestion is laughable and preposterous.

You said that Bill Ayers was not a terrorist.

You also started this idiotic thread which contains a bunch of silly, misleading bullshit.

Probably because you're so "objective"

Exactly. And he went on and on about Trayvon etc. Objective...whatever. Anything he does not agree with he categorizes as "parroting". What a joke. How hard could it be not to agree with everything Obama does. Laughable. Not acknowledging Ayers as a terrorist might take the cake though. He does not understand that those who disagree with him have valid reasons and he labels them as not objective. Is Obama objective, is Holder objective. Come on. Get real.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,809
Messages
13,573,464
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com