(06-13-2013 10:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: 1. You are creating a false choice. The 88% is something that was said in here. The other is something a politician said not Tom.
Tom is being chastised for carrying so much water for the President. He does so with a fair amount of fervor and is constantly saying "I didn't say that" when he quotes other people saying things. That's sort of like playing porn for children and then claiming you didn't produce it. Tom selected what was to be presented and then voiced his support for it and denial of retorts. Your (and his) attempts at disassociation are thus pretty meaningless, even if technically true, when you voice support for the findings and shoot down retorts of it. You/he didn't say it, but you endorsed it.
Quote:2. Premiums go up every year. We have to start adding that to the facts of life. Death, Taxes, and insurance premiums going up.
They don't go up by 88% for anyone. This comment has been debunked by numerous studies. As I said earlier... we aren't talking about 8-10% or even 20%. Premium increases are a function of math.
Quote:3. I think it's debatable on costs. Value is something that has to come into play here. Did anyone think we could insure pre existing conditions and NOT have an increase? It's a balance. It's good and bad. An equilibrium will be achieved.
Value and cost aren't the same argument at all. Costs are going up because of Obamacare, period. Yes, an equilibrium will be achieved, but at a much higher cost. Accessibility is also part of this equation... and you just pushed up demand by about 30% without increasing supply or reimbursement (in fact you make it go down). Exactly how do you expect costs NOT to rise in such a scenario? The math is simply not on Obama's side here.
A big part of the left's argument here is that costs for the uninsured and uninsurable go down. This is what you are speaking of when you say "value". This is at BEST a twisting of the facts. Insurance is math... not magic.
Here is the basics in a nutshell:
3 general classes of people and two financial descriptors.
Group A. The Insured (generally middle class and above)
Group B. The Insurable, but uninsured (generally poor to middle class... most of whom will get subsidies...)
Group C. The Uninsurable (except at a very high cost)
What they PAY for healthcare (expense)
What their healthcare COSTS.
Group C won't see their costs go down. They are high users of services and will continue to be so. Arguably, now that they are insured and can get all the care they need, their usage will go UP, not down... so their costs will go UP not down, in excess of the natural rate of increase. Their EXPENSE for healthcare may go down as a group... but that cost must be borne by SOMEONE.
Group B is similar in that their usage of healthcare will likely go up, so their costs go up, not down... and up in excess of the natural rate of increase as a result. Generally speaking, they choose not to insure because of the expense. Their expense will generally be subsidized, meaning borne by someone else. Their previous expense was zero (except what they paid out of pocket) and now this will be converted to a premium... but borne by someone else. They will generally only be responsible now for copays when they WERE responsible for it all. You can argue that this is a decrease... because it IS a decrease for them... from whatever they were paying out of pocket to the copays... but the "premium" for their healthcare will be higher than it would have been before... because they will use more. In this group you have those who merely used zero healthcare because they didn't need it... and those who didn't use as much as they needed. The zero users will now have to have a policy, and most of them won't be paying for their policy.
Group A will see their access to healthcare go down as group B and C are added to the demand equation. Their "cost" may go up or down (in excess of the natural rate of spending) depending on how this impacts their usage. If the lesser access negatively impacts their usage, then their health benefits also decline... so they not only bear the financial cost of the rest of society, but the health costs as well. I don't consider decreasing access thus forcing someone to forego healthcare as being a "savings" of any kind, but by this math, it is. Surely any "savings" from them "using" less healthcare will be minimal as they might skip relatively inexpensive, routine services but won't skip expensive, severe services.... and obviously, as everyone is included in this list and the other two are seing "expense" decreases, this group will see an expense INCREASE.... and likely a large one.
Now... You can argue that access to PCPs will decrease the use of the emergency room as a PCP... which is somewhat true... however, Emergency rooms already KNOW this and are thus staffed and equipped to deliver what is essentially PCP services... so all you are doing is converting hospital rooms to doctors offices. You REALLY aren't changing the cost of things. As to expense.. while emergency rooms CHARGE more for these services than a doctors office would, the differences aren't really that great because the expected RECOVERY rate is so low... especially when you consider that now instead of waiting until you're child gets over it or gets dehydrated to come and get them a fluid IV and a shot of phenergan... they're going to the doctor's office twice. What I mean is... The ER charges $100 but only expects half the people to pay (either by cash or insurance), so the actual income is $50 to cover the costs. Under Obamacare, they will expect a 100% recovery rate at the doctors office so they only need to charge $50. Either way, the "cost borne" is $50, but proponents will claim a 50% reduction.
The ACTUAL cost savings from overhead is nebulous... ERs will still be required by law to staff 24/7. In large cities, this won't be a problem. They will go from 10 docs on call expecting 150 patients to 8 on call for 120 in the ER with the other two working 8-5 at a doctors office seeing the other 30... but now that number grows to 50 so they are burned out... or people are forced back to the ER or into NO care because the wait is so long. In rural communities, they often only have one or two on call to see 15-30 patients... and now they're only seeing 22 at the ER with 15 at the doctors office... so what does the hospital do? Staff for 1 doc - 15 at the ER and be in violation of health regulations when 22 show up, or staff for 2 docs and lose money... ultimately potentially closing??
(06-13-2013 10:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: 1. Besides. Who said that no premiums anywhere would go up under Obamacare? I'd like to see that quote!
They said your premiums would go down. They did not qualify that statement. They also didn't say the sky wasn't red, but they DID say it was blue, which sort of implies that it isn't red.
"You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”
“My plan begins by covering every American.
If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less,” Obama said in his May 2007 speech unveiling his health care plan
Both from Obama... I won't look any further from him, but I found this quote "During the 2008 campaign Obama argued at least 15 times premiums would go down"... so I assume somebody has 15 quotes just during the 2008 campaign of him saying than.
and then Pelosi's famously (because she now denies saying it)
"I don't remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium," Pelosi said in response to a question from THE WEEKLY STANDARD. But during last year's presidential campaign, Pelosi said that because of Obamacare
"everybody will have lower rates." Pelosi, the House minority leader, made the comment during a July 1, 2012 appearance on Meet the Press:
with a linked video where you can watch her say it...
So yeah... It was said by people at the top.... and when you say everybody will have lower rates, that is effectively the same as saying nobody's rates will go up.
/
Obamacare to raise premiums in Ohio by nearly 88%
Like you NEVER do that.
