Obama-care, saving any money yet?

The healthcare industry and healthcare insurance companies are going to be the big winners in Obama-care at the expense of consumers. This was predicted.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/586229/201109271842/Obama-Trauma.aspx

My take is a bit different than the editorial above from IBD. I think in this case the overly complex regulatory environment with inadequate competition is at the root of what will be increased profits fro the industry. Again, we either need to go true single payer, or to a true free competitive market. Obama's hybrid solution is going to be a net drain on consumers.

 

ace, I'm not interested in discussing it with you given how impossible it is to have a rational and focused discussion with you on any topic.

I'll just offer a different perspective.

A better graphic of the original data (as opposed to the IBD "interepretation):



The upward trend in premium costs has been relatively steady over the last decade and given that the bulk of the ACA provisions have yet to be implemented, it is hard to understand how the act is to blame for the latest increase. But it makes for a great, however misleading, conservative talking point.

As noted the increase is attributed to a small degree to the early requirements of the law implemented last year -- the requirement of no co-payment for preventive care (including basic preventive case as well as mamogrophy and colonoscopy) and the requirement allowing children up to the age of 26 to remain on parents policy.

Anyone saving one yet? I would suggest those who take preventive care seriously have benefited as have young adults just out of college, but unable to find a job but can now remain on their parents plan.

The bulk of the of the latest increase can also be attributed to insurance companies anticipating a slowing of the recession (the period, 08-10, in which workers tend to hold off or lower their utilization of health care services) as well as positioning for the next phase of the ACA to be implemented near year -- requiring insurers to to spend 85 percent of premiums on providing direct health care benefits to patients.

In fact, the states are beginning to implement policies to review premium increases and require insurers to lower "unreasonable" increases in advance of the 2012 requirement.

And finally, the competition comes in 2014 when insurers will have to compete for the small business and individual market.

 

Most liberals/democrats thought the ACA was crap. What a surprise if it is.

 

I wouldnt quite it put it like that.

I would say the most ardent liberals would have preferred a single payer system, but most Democrats accept it as better than the status quo, given that there was no possibility of passage of a single payer system even with a Democratic majority in Congress.

But to suggest it is responsible for the most recent rising health care costs (that have been increasing at a fairly steady rate for 10+ years) before it is fully enacted is nothing more than conservative/Republican nonsense.

Personally, I dont think it will drive down the cost of health care for those in large employer-based plans but will likely minimize further significant increases. For the 30+ million uninsured, many working for small businesses, it will offer an affordable alternative to the current market.

It is not a long term solution, but simply the most achievable short term result.

 

I wish the "Obama-care" rhetoric would subside and let the program be recognized as the crap that the insurance and big pharma lobbies sabotaged it to be.

 

Call it what you want but it isn't going to lower total health care costs by even a penny.
It will shift some costs around, true. But it does nothing to actually decrease the total health care bill for the nation, which is what really needs to be adressed in coming years.
I am baffled as to how a single payer, Medicare style option was left out of this.
Obama actually managed to take a a horrible system (the current one) and make it even worse in the name of change.

 

It's a major payoff for the insurance companies, and even they're bitching about it.

 

Realistically, I dont see how we can afford a Medicare type single payer system for 300+ million people.

Like it or not, I think there has to be a role for the private insurers. Hell, Medicare recipients understand that given that nearly 1/4 of these folks have opted for a Medicare Advantage private option.

I'm interested in hearing how the ACA has made the bad system even worse...particularly before the most significant features of it have yet to be implemented.

The key is regulating the private sector to maximize competition and cost containment which is at the heart of the ACA.

 

There are numerous provisions in the law that provide incentives or value-based benefits to promote preventive care and healthy lifestyles and in the long run that is the best way to achieve savings at an individual level as well as the cost to the economy as a whole.

 

Some people currently receive too much health care and some people do not receive enough. Assume that government has a role in fixing this, does Obamacare fix it? The key to reducing costs is to increase efficiencies. Malpractice reform was needed and not delivered - according to doctors.

The preventative care question can be an interesting question in the context of cost control. How do we determine when to and when not to engage in preventative care? Who determines this? Should there be a penalty for those who choose not to partake in preventative treatment? So many questions.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health...ve-more-patient-care-than-required/50590216/1

 

If there was a public option that was non-profit, that would have lowered costs.

As for the costs increases seen over the past decade, the value of the dollar has gone down and prices for gas and food have also gone up.

But, there needs to be a healthy American plan to improve diets, stress, and exercise. That will really reduce costs.

 

Maybe if you stop calling it Obamacare we might have a reasonable debate

 

One thing I don't understand is this. If the USA has the highest per capita healthcare costs of all western countries, and many of those countries have universal health care, why can't the USA? Why would it be "too expensive"? Surely, it's cheaper.

It's not a quality issue either. The USA has the lowest life expectancy of the same nations, I believe (and isn't too hot on child mortality either).

Is it, maybe, the need for profit?

 

It would be cheaper for the vast majority of people, but the people with money are the ones who are listened to and it would hurt their bottom line to be taxed a little bit to provide a basic level of care to everyone else. The perception that we have "the best healthcare system in the world" is deeply ingrained in modern American exceptionalism and it's a herculean task to convince people otherwise.

The only ethical answer is a national, taxpayer-funded, single-payer system. The current system necessarily balances human suffering against profit, which is not acceptable.

 

Get over it.

We call them the Bush tax cuts.
We called it Bush's war.
We call it Reaganomics.

Why not be proud of Obama-care?

 

See my response here: http://www.thetfp.com/threads/tax-on-saturated-fats-in-food.1746/#post-25435