Obamacare exposed as a fraud

[trenchfoot]

After getting tuned into the propaganda/talking points the Repubs have been disseminating, it's become obvious it's not so much that our nation has taken the first step into universal healthcare that all those other first world nations have had that's an issue; it's how the for-profit health care industries don't like how it cuts into their profit margins and more importantly the loss of control of the market they still have a firm grip on but will progressively lose once the ACA proves itself viable and takes root.

That dislike manifests itself in the form of industry induced outrage on the part of their lackeys in the Repub Party of which they own outright.

The ACA is the law of the land and it has the SCOTUS seal of approval. The only other component it needs is enough public support to render it untouchable by it's detractors. In this regard, the folks that want to get rid of it realizes that it's much easier to kill this program in its infancy than in it's maturity, ergo this huge health industry push to murder it in its crib.

 

[cubby1223]

Did Ramsey account for all the people now paying for insurance who otherwise wouldn't have been?

Those who could not get insurance before are primarily the class of people who account for more in expenses than they pay into the insurance system (otherwise insurance companies would have been excited to insure them before Obamacare). Hence add them into the mix and everyone else's premiums do go up.

 

[Attic]

Ummm actually the current healthcare system originates in the 1920s and didn't look like what we have now until the 1940s-50s.

100+ years I think not.

I wasn't clear, I was speaking to debt.

Regarding the ACA it will require deficit spending, likely substantial, to make it appear "affordable" to individuals. If we ignore the effects of deficit spending (inflation and more required taxation) then we can focus on the affordability of the ACA by picking and choosing where to look.

Clearly ACA will be inefficient and expensive and require substantial deficit spending to continue to function. If we call a spade a spade we just accept that this is how all major government operations work. All the other aspects of ACA are separate from this axiom. There are many great things about the ACA, and if they do it right it may improve. But the economics of it are clear.

 

[OutHouse]

Try reading sometime. You might learn how words are spelled.

*pooh-pooh

 

[cubby1223]

After getting tuned into the propaganda/talking points the Repubs have been disseminating...

The ACA is the law of the land and it has the SCOTUS seal of approval. The only other component it needs is enough public support to render it untouchable by it's detractors. In this regard, the folks that want to get rid of it realizes that it's much easier to kill this program in its infancy than in it's maturity, ergo this huge health industry push to murder it in its crib.

Talk about talking points... sheesh, you're response is crafted straight out of "your side's" set of talking points. I've read those sentences hundreds of times.

There are a whole host of reasons why some don't like Obamacare, and they are not addressed by your talking points. That's why these discussions never go anywhere.

 

[madoka]

These assertions of "fraud" don't make much sense. Data from 36 exchanges was analyzed, and the results indicate that premiums are significantly lower than what was predicted by the CBO when Obamacare was first passed.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/25/news/economy/obamacare-premium-rates/



So, if actual premiums are 16% lower than PROJECTED premiums, I'm having a very, very difficult time understanding where the "fraud" is. I mean, fraud in this context means that people expected lower premiums and got higher premiums. But in this case, people are getting lower premiums than they expected.

The article you cited is faulty propaganda according to Forbes:

Last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally began to provide some data on how Americans will fare on Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchanges. HHS’ press release is full of happy talk about how premiums will be “lower than originally expected.” But the reality is starkly different.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

That is a cruel falsehood given what Obama said:

“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.”

But those that believe a 2,400 page law written by healthcare industry lobbyists, with 11,000 pages of rules and regulations, managed by thousands of government drones, enforced by the IRS, impacting 19% of the U.S. economy, and rolled out on a computer system that doesn’t work, can continue to believe it will improve the lives of all Americans.

 

[SilentRunning]

Did Ramsey account for all the people now paying for insurance who otherwise wouldn't have been?

How many people making over $93,000 do you think don't currenly have healthcare that are going to be signing up now? Remember everyone making less than four times the poverty level will be getting a subsidy if they buy through the exchange. (I know the susidy is just more Obama dollars)

 

[trenchfoot]

Talk about talking points... sheesh, you're response is crafted straight out of "your side's" set of talking points. I've read those sentences hundreds of times.

There are a whole host of reasons why some don't like Obamacare, and they are not addressed by your talking points. That's why these discussions never go anywhere.

OK, point taken, other than this idea of yours that I'm spouting talking points myself. Rather it's an honest opinion based on seeing and hearing time after time after time the same Repub verbatim verbiage about how this program will fail miserably without any solid supporting evidence.....you know....you've heard them/read them ad nauseum...baseless fear driven talking points....THAT kind of talking points. I could list them in alphabetical or chronological order if you like.

If you'd care to, I'd be more than interested if you'd provide this whole host of reasons that my commentary is not addressing, although my commentary also didn't include a host of reasons why some folks DO like the ACA. My feeling is the more informed I am the better I like it.

My intent was to share an observation that I've made over a period of time. Nothing more....or less.

 

[shira]

Well, that's how it was sold to the American people: premiums would be lower than 2010 levels, not that they'd be lower than 2014 projections.

Please provide a link to a reputable news source where it's documented that part of the ACA sales pitch was that 2014 premiums under the ACA would be lower than in 2010.

 

[Jhhnn]

Those who could not get insurance before are primarily the class of people who account for more in expenses than they pay into the insurance system (otherwise insurance companies would have been excited to insure them before Obamacare). Hence add them into the mix and everyone else's premiums do go up.

Not really. The money just flows in a different way. The reason why insurance co's pay padded bills from hospitals is because hospitals have to cover the costs of all the uninsured people they treat, people who often would have been cheaper to treat had it been done before they arrived in the emergency room.

Most Americans already have employer sponsored insurance, anyway, acquired their problems while they were insured. As I pointed out earlier, their expenses are already accounted for in group plans.

 

[cubby1223]

If you'd care to, I'd be more than interested if you'd provide this whole host of reasons that my commentary is not addressing, although my commentary also didn't include a host of reasons why some folks DO like the ACA. My feeling is the more informed I am the better I like it.

My intent was to share an observation that I've made over a period of time. Nothing more....or less.

My whole beef with Obamacare is I do not believe it is addressing the most important aspect - efficiency.

The primary focus of Obamacare is to get everyone insured. But if it doesn't increase the supply of "health care", care provided to a newly insured individual is care not provided to another person. So what has been solved other than a block of votes for the Democratic Party?

I don't work in the health-care industry, I do not know what it takes to make them more efficient without a sizable reduction in quality. But I do know that efficiency is something all businesses strive for.

I know Obamacare deals with electronic medial records, and encouraging more preventative care - but it's not enough. We need more doctors and we need cheaper hospitals.

Increasing the consumer pool without increasing the resource supply doesn't solve anything.

And there are always new news stories about people defrauding government health services to the tune of millions, do you believe that Obamacare will reduce the amount of fraud? Or provide new opportunities for other lawless people do skim from the programs? Every case of fraud is increasing the costs and decreasing the supply.


I understand that insurance companies have treated their insurers in shitty ways and I am glad that the Democratic Party wants to put an end to that. And I like the idea of forcing young people to pay for insurance - because what is it on average like 85% of your medical expenses come in your last 5 years of life. Take me for example, I'm 32, and I am living my life on the assumption that these "entitlements" will not be there when I am 70 years old, the money I'm putting in will not be there when it is my turn to take. We're already seeing the breakdown of the pension system, it's only a matter of time before these entitlements break down unless the industry becomes more efficient.



So the big question is, can health-care be made more efficient with this legislation in place, or without? I believe without, so while the talking points are always about the legality and the expanded coverage, they always gloss over how the industry will be efficient enough to still exist when it is my turn to take.

Maybe that comes across as selfish, but I don't believe it is. Efficiency benefits everyone. Efficiency improves coverage naturally, rather than forcibly.

 

[ivwshane]

-snip

I can totally respect that opinion and it's a valid concern and one that many people on both sides of the isle.

The response is; you are right but it's a start.

My question to you would then be; are you voting for people who agree with you and are advocating for ideas that go towards fixing the problem or are you voting for those whose only solution is to do away with the ACA?

 

[ivwshane]

The article you cited is faulty propaganda according to Forbes:



That is a cruel falsehood given what Obama said:

“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.”

But those that believe a 2,400 page law written by healthcare industry lobbyists, with 11,000 pages of rules and regulations, managed by thousands of government drones, enforced by the IRS, impacting 19% of the U.S. economy, and rolled out on a computer system that doesn’t work, can continue to believe it will improve the lives of all Americans.

You are comparing an article about healthcare premiums in general to healthcare premiums of young people. Do you understand how insurance, of any kind, works? The less risky always subsidize the risky, ie: the young will subsidize the healthcare of the old. Why would young peoples rates go up? Well because they are now required to pay where as before they weren't and where as before, insurance companies could drop those with pre existing conditions, they could put caps on the amount of coverage spent, they could charge a bunch for administrative costs that really didn't cost them anything, and now they can't do any of that.

So either you are being dishonest with your article/study comparison or you really don't understand what's going on.

 

[bozack]

The vast majority of whom are in employer sponsored group plans, have been for years, so the cost is already averaged out. People routinely keep jobs they hate to keep their healthcare. That's particularly true of older Americans shy of 65.

Not to mention that we're seeing the usual right wing myopia. Plans are for the ACA to be there in the future, even when you get older & have health problems yourself. Look past the end of your nose.

I recently heard this argument about people staying in jobs that they dislike simply for coverage and I continually shake my head and why having people, especially older people enter into publicly funded care is "better" on the whole...sure I get it will open up positions in the workforce potentially for younger folks, but I already see a good number of companies downsizing in preparation for covering costs of ACA and I wouldn't be surprised if they are banking on some of their older workforce leaving as a part of that.

Also I am somewhat skeptical about your assertion that the "vast majority" of high premium folks (Overweight, pre-existing conditions, etc) are covered in company plans, sounds like something you would pull out of your ass just to make a point....where's the bacon with that one Jh....I am too lazy to look it up myself so putting my democrat hat on please go out and find me the link.

Even worse to me is the notion that young people now can feel empowered to go off and start their own venture while getting "free" coverage from the Govt/Taxpayers....the article I read highlighted a younger couple that were chomping at the bit for ACA/Obummercare so they could quit their jobs and follow their dream of starting up their own realty firm (like we really need more realtors)

As for seeing down the road, since when is that ever the American way, it certainly isn't the liberal democrat way, and even so people have made it along for years the way things were with private insurance so...

 

[Jhhnn]

Also I am somewhat skeptical about your assertion that the "vast majority" of high premium folks (Overweight, pre-existing conditions, etc) are covered in company plans, sounds like something you would pull out of your ass just to make a point....where's the bacon with that one Jh....I am too lazy to look it up myself so putting my democrat hat on please go out and find me the link.

Oh, please. The health issues you describe occur as a % of the population. The vast majority of people in this country are covered under employer sponsored plans. There is no reason to think that the two propositions are mutually exclusive. You somehow assert that they are, then challenge me to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

You "see" a good number of companies downsizing because of the ACA? No, you merely believe & assert faith as fact.

Liberals don't take the long view? Really? SS is obviously a long view proposition, as is spending on education, infrastructure, research & the environment.

Your propaganda driven assertions fly in the face of reality. It's a common problem for people who don't critically examine their own belief structure, who simply believe in emotionally satisfying propositions because it feels good to do so. It's not the Truth, it's just Truthiness.

 

[fskimospy]

People will have the option of paying up front for insurance or eating a fine, and the fine is considerably less for some than the cost of what is being offered through the excahges...so while they might get some revenue from the fine, chances are there will still be a healthy group of those who continue to use "free" services from local ERs, not to mention all of those "undocumented Americans" who continue to rack up the costs.

Ramsey is right, there are/were a lot of people who paid a healthy premium for their insurance due to their conditions, now that will be level set and the difference has to be made up somewhere.

Its silly you guys defend this even after Obummer gave businesses a year to defer...fair is fair and that liberty should have been afforded to all.

What's silly is how you guys fall for this crap so easily. The employer mandate and the individual mandate are two entirely different things with wildly different purposes. The argument that because one was delayed that the other should be delayed for "fairness" is illogical.

Generally a lot of these people were priced out of the insurance market anyway, but let's not delude ourselves that this large portion of the population that didn't have access to health care meant that there were no costs involved.

 

[fskimospy]

Also I am somewhat skeptical about your assertion that the "vast majority" of high premium folks (Overweight, pre-existing conditions, etc) are covered in company plans, sounds like something you would pull out of your ass just to make a point....where's the bacon with that one Jh....I am too lazy to look it up myself so putting my democrat hat on please go out and find me the link.

About 60% of Americans overall are covered by employer subsidized insurance. In particular, these numbers skew towards children and older Americans. (after 65 of course we have medicare) The percentage of Americans with ESI is lowest amongst 19-25 year olds, at about 30-35%. That population is the least likely to have pre-existing conditions for obvious reasons.

Depending on what you count as "vast majority" (and pre-existing condition), it should be plain as day that Americans with pre-existing conditions are in large part covered by employer insurance and/or Medicare.

 

[yottabit]

Here is Dave Ramsey explaining that since normal, healthy workers are going to have to pay for those that aren't, mathematically their premiums have to go up, not down

That's the entire premise of insurance though. Would you like to have insurance where your premium would go up 10x if you became a high risk patient by say, acquiring a chronic illness? The whole idea is to average the costs across the population and previously the healthcare system was wrongfully (IMO) excluding people with pre-existing conditions

Also I think it's premature to call anything a failure. Although the premium costs seem to have gone up for "normal" people they may also be getting some additional benefits/extra coverage due to the new requirements that could lower their overall lifetime healthcare cost (theoretically, at least)

I think the price spikes are a knee-jerk reaction right now. I mean insurance companies don't know exactly how the ACA is going to affect them. They are pricing (probably conservatively) based off prediction and models. After a couple years things will settle down into prices based off of actual data and reality and then we will understand the true cost.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's the entire premise of insurance though. Would you like to have insurance where your premium would go up 10x if you became a high risk patient by say, acquiring a chronic illness? The whole idea is to average the costs across the population and previously the healthcare system was wrongfully (IMO) excluding people with pre-existing conditions

The ACA doesn't just average costs across the population, but also across the working lifetimes of the people participating. It assures younger people that they'll be able to afford it when they too grow older.

 

[sactoking]

Please provide a link to a reputable news source where it's documented that part of the ACA sales pitch was that 2014 premiums under the ACA would be lower than in 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/factsheet_healthcare.pdf

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/factsheet_healthcare.pdf

Well, yeh, but that link doesn't say what you claim it does. It says-

The Obama plan will save a typical American family up to
$2,500 every year on medical expenditures by:

It didn't say costs wouldn't go up between 2010 and 2014, at all.

Otherwise, quote the passage referencing 2010 costs, please.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Look at the link statement.

Up to

Remember all the promotion and sales info that you are subjected to each day.

Up to is another phrase for it will happen one time and the rest of you get screwed.

 

[shira]

Well, yeh, but that link doesn't say what you claim it does. It says-



It didn't say costs wouldn't go up between 2010 and 2014, at all.

Otherwise, quote the passage referencing 2010 costs, please.

Furthermore, this is a 2008 campaign flyer. 2008! So we're being told that if an election campaign "promise" doesn't end up being true, before legislation is even passed, that this constitutes "fraud"!?! By that standard, every President in the history of the U.S. has committed fraud.

My God, we've known ever since the CBO estimates were published in early 2012 - BEFORE the 2012 election - approximately what the premiums would be. At that time, the Republican response was that those CBO estimates were TOO LOW! Yet despite knowing what the "truth" about Obmacare premiums, the American public re-elected Obama and gave Democrats additional seats in the House and Senate.

And now that we know what the true premiums are, on average 19% LOWER than the CBO estimates, what does the GOP tell us? That FRAUD has been committed.

This is so laughable it's almost not worth responding to.

Of course, the out and out lies that Ted Cruz told his Tea Party constituents - that Obamacare could be "defunded" (when we all know that the ACA was funded independently of the CR) and that the Obama administration would fold when confronted by a CR that "defunded" obamacare, are just passed off by the far right as engaging in a heroic fight.

If anyone has committed fraud here, it's Ted Cruz and his fellow Tea Party zealots.

 

[Matt1970]

Furthermore, this is a 2008 campaign flyer. 2008! So we're being told that if an election campaign "promise" doesn't end up being true, before legislation is even passed, that this constitutes "fraud"!?! By that standard, every President in the history of the U.S. has committed fraud.

My God, we've known ever since the CBO estimates were published in early 2012 - BEFORE the 2012 election - approximately what the premiums would be. At that time, the Republican response was that those CBO estimates were TOO LOW! Yet despite knowing what the "truth" about Obmacare premiums, the American public re-elected Obama and gave Democrats additional seats in the House and Senate.

And now that we know what the true premiums are, on average 19% LOWER than the CBO estimates, what does the GOP tell us? That FRAUD has been committed.

This is so laughable it's almost not worth responding to.

Of course, the out and out lies that Ted Cruz told his Tea Party constituents - that Obamacare could be "defunded" (when we all know that the ACA was funded independently of the CR) and that the Obama administration would fold when confronted by a CR that "defunded" obamacare, are just passed off by the far right as engaging in a heroic fight.

If anyone has committed fraud here, it's Ted Cruz and his fellow Tea Party zealots.

I see, so because it was said in 2008 it doesn't count. The truth only has a 2 year statute of limitations? 4 year?

 

[ivwshane]

I see, so because it was said in 2008 it doesn't count. The truth only has a 2 year statute of limitations? 4 year?

Did Obama pass his idea/version of healthcare he ran on or did he have to conpromise and pass something different?

You fuckers and your crying wolf is getting really old. It used to be funny but it's moved past that now.