Obamacare: Gruber admitted it might not be affordable

[Fern]

Basically more on how we were lied to to get this passed.

Obamacare wasn't designed, nor expected, to save money/reduce costs. Excerpts from one of his papers/presentations in 2009:

Cost Control

This is an important issue to understand and put in the context of the current debate. There are basically two types of cost control. What I call win-win cost control sounds good and does good. But it doesn’t save any money.

• Invest in information technology, electronic medical records. Great idea; it won’t save any money, but it will improve the quality of our health care.

• Preventive care; great idea, it will improve our health, but there’s no evidence it will actually save us any money.

• Comparative effectiveness research and guidelines, study what works and what doesn’t. How can you be against studying what works? But it doesn’t matter just to study it. Unless you tell doctors they can’t do it, it’s not going to save any money to just know it doesn’t work. We know lots of things don’t work that people still get.

The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want.

• It’s about telling patients, “That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.” It’s basically about saying that we as a society are going to have a minimal insurance package that reimburses effective treatments but that makes people pay on their own for ineffective treatments.

• It doesn’t deny treatment. For instance, in England you can’t get an organ transplant if you are over a certain age. That may be good policy or not, but it will never happen in this country, not in our lifetime. There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, “You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.” That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a
higher level of coverage


Divide and Conquer: First Universal Coverage, Then Cost Control

So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.

It’s the same in the US. We need to get the coverage question out of the way, get everyone pulling in the same direction, and then we’ll get to cost control. But if people hold out for a bill that controls health care costs we won’t have a bill. And then 48 million people, 50 million a year later, and so on, will still be uninsured. That really is a moral failure.

https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/cpr/events/cpr_lectures/pb41.pdf

If you want to read a summary/article just go here (note: it's a Daily Caller article I saw on this site):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...acare-will-not-be-affordable/?intcmp=trending

Fern

 

[chucky2]

Not to sound flip Fern, but, no shit? The people who think the Dem Leadership (I don't even really include Bummer since I don't really believe he was leading Bummercare anyways) weren't already having conversations with this content has to be basically zero - no one could admit to being that naive/dumb.

The failure of Obamacare is that it under-delivers because the Politicians who are elected to know better failed to deliver what was truly needed. Essentially, they intentionally failed their duty so they could get re-elected. No surprise but linking to stuff like this is not a big deal (again, because we know that content like this already would be what they were telling themselves back and forth)...

Chuck

 

[Fern]

Yet we have many here touting the party line that it will decrease costs. In fact, they are claiming evidence that it has already done so. Well, here's the top 'expert' saying those things won't reduce costs.

Oddly, we have new groups of 'experts' popping up doing studies that claim to show the exact opposite.

(BTW: There's really more in his paper than I commented on. E.g., an acknowledgement that the ACA is not the 'end game' etc. His claim that Obama knew it was unlikely to control costs, but claimed it would anyway. And I think he's said what I've been saying all along: Costs savings/control can only come from limiting what procedures we cover. The AMA and New England Journal of Medicine have identified unnecessary/redundant procedures, varying wildly in costs, as the culprit. Professional standards for physicians, as other professions have, are necessary to correct this. Otherwise, unneccsary perocedures etc. are going to continue.

It appears the Progressive are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water if they can just get everyone covered. In time will know how effective they were at expanding coverage to those not previously covered. I.e., was the ACA worth it?)

Fern

 

[boomerang]

The end justifies the means. No lie is too big, no cost too great. It is important to keep in mind that the end goal is redistribution of wealth and along with it, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America. He told us he was going to do it. He has two years left to get us so far down the road that there is no path to get back. History is repeating itself in what was once the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

People never see it happening while it is occurring. It's only years or decades afterwards that they can point to how it transpired. What a shame that the human race has learned virtually nothing in the most important aspect that effects the species - governing.

 

[ivwshane]

Looks like you righties will be supporting politicians who will really fix our health care system!


Oh wait...no you won't.

 

[Knowing]

Is this going to be like the months of insisting that it's not a tax, only to reverse course on one fateful day and claim that "it was a trick" and "we really fooled you silly backwards wrong people," because there was no trick the first time.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In few years I will sleep well knowing that young liberals like ivwshane will be paying for my social security and healthcare. In the meantime I will be getting both my knees replaced at the same time this upcoming year while I still have low deductible/max out of pocket insurance ($30/$2,000).

 

[trenchfoot]

So the Health Insurance companies, just like so many other too big to fail businesses, including businesses like the Koch Bros. get to literally write their own legislation to protect/increase their profit margins.

With that fact in mind, I'm actually amazed the ACA got anywhere at all with the Repubs also looking every which way to stop it dead in its tracks.

Small wonder the ACA ended up looking the way it did after it got passed. It had to get run through the meat grinder that the Health Insurance companies and the Repubs put up to have things their way, which, curiously, would have looked exactly like how things already were before the ACA got passed.

Bottom line: The Health Insurance companies made sure their profit margins were protected and the Repubs made sure that the ACA was as crippled as possible to give themselves the greatest chance to repeal it if it ever got legs.

And it's all the Dems fault that it ended up looking the way it does?

I really don't think so.

IMO, it's a start in the right direction and given the chance it deserves, the ACA, or whatever the Repubs can possibly come up with, can be even better than those programs all of the other first world nations presently run with a modicum of success.

Greed is the one obstacle that needs to be gotten out of the way for any kind of successful national health program to succeed.

 

[ivwshane]

In few years I will sleep well knowing that young liberals like ivwshane will be paying for my social security and healthcare. In the meantime I will be getting both my knees replaced at the same time this upcoming year while I still have low deductible/max out of pocket insurance ($30/$2,000).

Lol! I like how you think that some how upsets me!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't care if it upsets you or not, it just does my heart well to know people like you will be there to foot the bill so I don't.

 

[Engineer]

I don't care if it upsets you or not, it just does my heart well to know people like you will be there to foot the bill so I don't.

You already did.

 

[ivwshane]

You already did.

Don't even bother trying to explain it to this idiot

 

[shira]

Basically more on how we were lied to to get this passed.

Obamacare wasn't designed, nor expected, to save money/reduce costs. Excerpts from one of his papers/presentations in 2009:


https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/cpr/events/cpr_lectures/pb41.pdf

If you want to read a summary/article just go here (note: it's a Daily Caller article I saw on this site):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...acare-will-not-be-affordable/?intcmp=trending

Fern

But Obamacare is CLEARLY affordable. How do I know this? Because one way or another "universal" health care IS paid for by the U.S., regardless of who nominally pays for the health insurance or the actual health care. Those won't don't have health insurance, or who are under-insured, nevertheless are able to receive testing and treatment for major health care issues and a lot of less-than-major ones. All Obamacare does is shift more of the cost than the pre-Obamacare system into a "visible" place. And there's evidence that Obamacare has reduced the rate of increase of the cost of healthcare, meaning that it is more affordable than the old system.

In other words, this "conclusion" that Obamacare will become unaffordable is based on the how much federal spending might be required. But health care costs are borne by Americans whether they're paid for by the federal government or by state governments or out of pocket by individuals (in the form of either higher insurance premiums or higher prices for health care), and since those total costs are actually cheaper under Obamacare than the previous system, Obamacare is more affordable.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You already did.

At a much lower price and part of it while being paid by the taxpayers while in the military.

 

[sportage]

Bottom line, and the bottom line is always the bottom line...
People want it. People like it. People are buying it. Signup has exceeded all expectations.
I suppose on paper, back then, even Gruber thought this would never work. But it has.

The point missed, is that people rather be insured opposed to being uninsured.
People want to be part of that elite class of the insured.
The uninsured were tired of using the ER as their only form of healthcare, especially those uninsured with small children and families.

So.... what's damn hard not to understand here ????

 

[trenchfoot]

Bottom line, and the bottom line is always the bottom line...
People want it. People like it. People are buying it. Signup has exceeded all expectations.
I suppose on paper, back then, even Gruber thought this would never work. But it has.

The point missed, is that people rather be insured opposed to being uninsured.
People want to be part of that elite class of the insured.
The uninsured were tired of using the ER as their only form of healthcare, especially those uninsured with small children and families.

So.... what's damn hard not to understand here ????

Repub base was given their marching orders to despise and revile anything that came from the Dems, and especially those things that came from Obama himself. It really didn't matter what got put on the table by the Dems or Obama. EVERYTHING was/is to be obstructed. It doesn't matter how many millions more of our fellow Americans can now acquire health insurance where they couldn't before the ACA was passed. It doesn't matter how many millions of them are Repubs that are now benefiting from the ACA.

The standing order to obstruct and deny is still in effect, ergo the ACA must be defeated one way or another.

Why? They don't care why. Or so it seems.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't have Obama care and I'm not going to pay for it either. Fuck the socialist commie fucks. When I go to a hospital, it will be to die, then, and only then, will someone else pay for it. Until then, I'm going to be the socialist, commie fucks nightmare, aka, Republican.

 

[Zorkorist]

I don't have Obama care and I'm not going to pay for it either. Fuck the socialist commie fucks. When I go to a hospital, it will be to die, then, and only then, will someone else pay for it. Until then, I'm going to be the socialist, commie fucks nightmare, aka, Republican.

It's more like;

We're 18 Trillion Dollars in Debt, and I only see us getting further and further in the hole. It's not going to affect me so much, as I am an adult. My poor kids, however.

What in the world are we doing to the children, our future? Giving them insurmountable debt? Teaching them that the minimum, is all that is expected, or that can be expected? Teaching them all to fear one another, hate one another, govern one another?

Freedom, is twerking, and being a Kardashian, etc.?

-John

 

[gotsmack]

From the sounds of it, it is heading into the direction that I think health care should be, Basic universal healthcare + private insurance for additional coverage. This ACA stuff is going to collapse and we'll eventually have to make it "Free" at some basic level.

What I mean by basic health care is preventative stuff like checkups, emergency room stuff, and one day in and out medical procedures that will get you back to work. If you have a condition that needs ongoing or long term care, then you should have private insurance for that.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's the long term medical stuff, that is expensive. People are living longer.

The solution is making it less expensive.

Government, Insurance Companies and Lawyers, are only making it more expensive to provide basic health care.

-John

 

[Conscript]

Bottom line, and the bottom line is always the bottom line...
People want it. People like it. People are buying it. Signup has exceeded all expectations.

Can't tell if serious?

 

[boomerang]

Can't tell if serious?

He's suffering from Kool-Aid poisoning.

 

[Matt1970]

Bottom line, and the bottom line is always the bottom line...
People want it. People like it. People are buying it. Signup has exceeded all expectations.
I suppose on paper, back then, even Gruber thought this would never work. But it has.

The point missed, is that people rather be insured opposed to being uninsured.
People want to be part of that elite class of the insured.
The uninsured were tired of using the ER as their only form of healthcare, especially those uninsured with small children and families.

So.... what's damn hard not to understand here ????

If you pull your head out of Obama's ass the sand, you will only about 37% of the people want ACA.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179426/new-enrollment-period-starts-aca-approval.aspx

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

• Invest in information technology, electronic medical records. Great idea; it won’t save any money, but it will improve the quality of our health care.

And here we have a real world example of politicians, their hired guns and the general public having no idea of what they are talking about.

If technology was implemented as I've described in the past then there would have to be cost savings. Initially it would be a substantial investment but compared to the f35 aircraft it's a trivial expense. It's incredibly naive to assume that duplication of services or appropriate treatment can be adequately addressed in a vacuum of information. Just having medical records electronically would be a first step, but universal access in real time needs to be the goal. So no, electronic records will be helpful locally but probably not save the government or other insurers much, no more than would a 1/10th completed interstate transportation system would speed up traffic nationally. But you have to start planning and doing before anything can realize potential.

Then there's this obsession on both sides about costs being the most important thing. Well screw you all. Technology is why a great many aren't sitting in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives or buried in the ground. Want to save money? Go back to 1950 in science and technology and health care will be nothing. But if you want both quality and timely access to it then it will cost, period.

What is needed is a unified and cohesive system which provides comprehensive and easily accessible real time data. That provides immediate patient benefit and long term data to allow intelligent and informed continuous improvement to the art and science of medicine, something that NO OTHER SYSTEM in the world has now. But you all would rather fight about irrelevancies. The politics is the most important thing. We could have something better than any other nation, but we'll have the F35 instead for a lot more cost than saving lives.

Thanks a lot.

But think of it this way beancounters, as you lie dying you can thank your lucky stars that your funeral is less expensive than what it would cost to live a healthy life.

 

[Engineer]

Removed