Preimums rise faster under Obamacare than in piror 8 years combined!

[SaurusX]

It's so funny to me how the ACA continues to be a topic here when at the largest actuarial forum on the net it's a totally dead topic. It was hashed out years ago and the overwhelming consensus was the ACA would never work as promised and that administration never knew how insurance worked in the first place. All of these "revelations" will keep on coming and the laymen out there will continue to be shocked and surprised while the true-believers will never give up the faith. So very funny indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

You'll be pleased to know that the rationing is already underway.

Nation’s elite cancer hospitals off-limits under Obamacare

http://nypost.com/2014/03/19/nations-elite-cancer-hospitals-off-limits-under-obamacare/

Wow, that's a really misleading headline. By 'off limits' they meant that about 40% of plans have agreements with them.

I for one am a fan of this, btw. If you can afford the very best in medical care then you should totally go get it. That doesn't mean that everyone in the US can afford the very best. Controlling costs is important.

 

[SaurusX]

I for one am a fan of this, btw. If you can afford the very best in medical care then you should totally go get it. That doesn't mean that everyone in the US can afford the very best. Controlling costs is important.

Death panels you say?

 

[fskimospy]

Death panels you say?

If that's a 'death panel' then we have had 'death panels' for decades. Every insurance company has an in-house death panel.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow, that's a really misleading headline. By 'off limits' they meant that about 40% of plans have agreements with them.

I for one am a fan of this, btw. If you can afford the very best in medical care then you should totally go get it. That doesn't mean that everyone in the US can afford the very best. Controlling costs is important.

We're finding that out.

 

[BoberFett]

The savings won't really kick in until we begin rationing health care. There is no rational reason on earth to spend a million dollars of taxpayer dollars attempting to keep some 70 year old retired person alive. Once America realizes this and starts triaging services like Canada, then the REAL savings will kick in. The truth really really does suck. I don't like it anymore than anybody else but there it is.

I can't believe I'm about to say this but...

I agree with bshole.

 

[Strk]

We're finding that out.

It has always been that way. When you would hear the token "we have the best health care in the world," along with "people come to the US for medical care" may sometimes be true, but those people aren't going to some county hospital.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obamacare is crap and, personally, I'd love to see a system like the German one, but it's better than what we had. People can complain that their plans don't exist or that some had increased costs, but it's because of how horrible some plans actually were. Some people's insurance was only good enough to say they were at least insured. It didn't cover anything, but they had insurance!

Obama shouldn't have ever said people could keep their plans. Too many plans were utter garbage.

 

[SaurusX]

If that's a 'death panel' then we have had 'death panels' for decades. Every insurance company has an in-house death panel.

You mean those evil insurance companies that the ACA was supposed to whip into shape? Now they're the example you think we should follow? And yes, the very definition of a "death panel" is a group of bureaucrats somewhere deciding whether or not it's "worth it" to pay for someone's treatment or let them die.

I'm just curious, but do you agree or disagree with what Sarah Palin said?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It has always been that way. When you would hear the token "we have the best health care in the world," along with "people come to the US for medical care" may sometimes be true, but those people aren't going to some county hospital.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obamacare is crap and, personally, I'd love to see a system like the German one, but it's better than what we had. People can complain that their plans don't exist or that some had increased costs, but it's because of how horrible some plans actually were. Some people's insurance was only good enough to say they were at least insured. It didn't cover anything, but they had insurance!

Obama shouldn't have ever said people could keep their plans. Too many plans were utter garbage.

I keep hearing that all those people who lost their insurance had garbage plans. Do you have any facts that back this up?

 

[BUnit1701]

Umm, the ACA encompasses a lot more than the individual mandate, including a good number of measures explicitly designed to control Medicare and Medicaid costs. What's the confusion?

FTFY

 

[fskimospy]

You mean those evil insurance companies that the ACA was supposed to whip into shape? Now they're the example you think we should follow? And yes, the very definition of a "death panel" is a group of bureaucrats somewhere deciding whether or not it's "worth it" to pay for someone's treatment or let them die.

I'm just curious, but do you agree or disagree with what Sarah Palin said?

No, I'm saying that death panels don't exist and that Sarah Palin is an insane idiot. Not only is the concept itself absurd, but Sarah Palin's comment was that people would go before Obama's 'death panel' and have to prove their level of productivity to society in order to get treatment. It was never about determining what treatments are effective and worthy of funding, which is the 'death panel' that you appear to be describing.

So right back at you, do you agree or disagree with what Sarah Palin said?

Choosing what treatments to cover or not is a death panel the same way the police force has a murder and robbery panel by choosing what corners to put police officers on.

 

[fskimospy]

FTFY

Not only do Medicare and Medicaid encompass a huge percentage of national health spending, but lots of treatment rates for private insurance are based off of what Medicare/Medicaid pays.

 

[SaurusX]

I keep hearing that all those people who lost their insurance had garbage plans. Do you have any facts that back this up?

They have to have something to point to in order to justify the havoc the ACA has caused. Whether or not it's true doesn't matter.

 

[SaurusX]

No, I'm saying that death panels don't exist and that Sarah Palin is an insane idiot. Not only is the concept itself absurd, but Sarah Palin's comment was that people would go before Obama's 'death panel' and have to prove their level of productivity to society in order to get treatment. It was never about determining what treatments are effective and worthy of funding, which is the 'death panel' that you appear to be describing.

So right back at you, do you agree or disagree with what Sarah Palin said?

Choosing what treatments to cover or not is a death panel the same way the police force has a murder and robbery panel by choosing what corners to put police officers on.

Her reasoning of the eventual outcome was correct, but the details were wrong. There absolutely will be a panel of people deciding what treatments will be paid for and under what circumstances. Sarah Palin expected a hearing where you could press your case; there won't even be that. Age is a convenient metric when measuring someone's value to society and I don't doubt for a moment that there will be a 30 year old approved for an expensive treatment that a senior wouldn't be.

Let me just quote what bshole said:

There is no rational reason on earth to spend a million dollars of taxpayer dollars attempting to keep some 70 year old retired person alive.

 

[fskimospy]

Her reasoning of the eventual outcome was correct, but the details were wrong. There absolutely will be a panel of people deciding what treatments will be paid for and under what circumstances. Sarah Palin expected a hearing where you could press your case; there won't even be that. Age is a convenient metric when measuring someone's value to society and I don't doubt for a moment that there will be a 30 year old approved for an expensive treatment that a senior wouldn't be.

There is already a panel deciding what treatments will be paid for under Medicare and for all private insurers. How could there not be? (if there wasn't we could all just make a fortune selling magic healing beans) There is no provision that allows them to deny care based on age, however.

Considering there is no provision for denial based on age anywhere in the ACA or any Medicare/Medicaid regulations, what are you basing this on?

Let me just quote what bshole said:

I really don't care what that idiot says.

 

[BoberFett]

No, I'm saying that death panels don't exist and that Sarah Palin is an insane idiot. Not only is the concept itself absurd, but Sarah Palin's comment was that people would go before Obama's 'death panel' and have to prove their level of productivity to society in order to get treatment. It was never about determining what treatments are effective and worthy of funding, which is the 'death panel' that you appear to be describing.

So right back at you, do you agree or disagree with what Sarah Palin said?

Choosing what treatments to cover or not is a death panel the same way the police force has a murder and robbery panel by choosing what corners to put police officers on.

The phrase death panel was designed to illicit a specific political response. But you're just in denial to say they don't exist. They have to. Anytime resources are scarce, there must be a system in place to distribute them. That means some people must be told that nothing will be done for them, and to spend their remaining time with the loved ones.

 

[fskimospy]

The phrase death panel was designed to illicit a specific political response. But you're just in denial to say they don't exist. They have to. Anytime resources are scarce, there must be a system in place to distribute them. That means some people must be told that nothing will be done for them, and to spend their remaining time with the loved ones.

They don't exist in the manner that Sarah Palin described them. Other than that I've been very clear that all insurers, public and private, have *always* had what he appears to be calling a death panel. I agree, it is a fundamental requirement of basically all systems on earth, health care included.

 

[Jhhnn]

The issue is, of course, far more complex than the Squaller represents it to be, and far less sensational.

That's because very few people will pay the full premium, due to several factors.

1. Most people are covered by employer sponsored group plans with heavy subsidies by employers.

2. Sliding scale govt subsidies cover the vast majority of people who enroll on the exchanges. A family of 4 needs to have an income of $95,400 to receive no subsidy.

http://blogs.northcountrypublicradi...pected-thursday-and-we-want-to-hear-from-you/

http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines

A bit of math gives a decent estimate of monthly rates at any given income level.

 

[werepossum]

The savings won't really kick in until we begin rationing health care. There is no rational reason on earth to spend a million dollars of taxpayer dollars attempting to keep some 70 year old retired person alive. Once America realizes this and starts triaging services like Canada, then the REAL savings will kick in. The truth really really does suck. I don't like it anymore than anybody else but there it is.

There's a certain justice in allowing the 70 year old who has the money to have the hip transplant rather than giving her a wheelchair and pain pills and using her money to give some poor person therapy for his mommy issues. Beyond that I tend to agree with one small change - health care is already rationed, as is everything valuable which is inherently limited. We're simply shifting to government-based rationing rather than market-based rationing. Also, I doubt we'll ever see any savings. I suspect that whatever money is saved by denying old people health care will be more than used up in new entitlements and "positive rights".

Umm, these little things called logic and common sense. How does forcing more individuals to purchase insurance cause more efficient spending on healthcare? How does having more premiums paid reduce the cost of drugs and services? Simple answer is it doesn't.

It's certainly going to cost more, but it can arguably be more efficient in some ways. Allowing someone access to health care when something first becomes a problem is often more efficient than very expensive and seldom successful attempts to save someone with metastasized cancer, for instance.

It's so funny to me how the ACA continues to be a topic here when at the largest actuarial forum on the net it's a totally dead topic. It was hashed out years ago and the overwhelming consensus was the ACA would never work as promised and that administration never knew how insurance worked in the first place. All of these "revelations" will keep on coming and the laymen out there will continue to be shocked and surprised while the true-believers will never give up the faith. So very funny indeed.

That's the beauty of being a ruler, one is under no stricture to understand something before fundamentally transforming it. Obamacare also has the proggie advantage of being non-falsifiable; if it flops spectacularly, as it seems to be doing, that just means we needed even more socialized medicine because even Obama Himself could not save non-government medicine.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's the beauty of being a ruler, one is under no stricture to understand something before fundamentally transforming it. Obamacare also has the proggie advantage of being non-falsifiable; if it flops spectacularly, as it seems to be doing, that just means we needed even more socialized medicine because even Obama Himself could not save non-government medicine.

We shouldn't feel too bad- the rest of the first world hasn't figured out how to have non-government medicine, either, iirc.

 

[WackyDan]

What are you basing that on?

To find out what the effect of the ACA is on the cost of health care we actually need to wait and see how much we spend on health care after it is in place.

Fuck man...

My costs in 2013 already went up by over $1000 just by what those motherfuckers did in capping the FSA's down to $2500. You know... those nasty FSA's that were there to help control/mitigate your out of pocket costs? My previous cap was $5200... AND I used every fucking penny of that FSA for my daughter who born at 1 pound 4 ounces has some "slightly" elevated medical needs.

Fuck the ACA... It hasn't done anything to make healthcare more affordable for my family.

 

[zinfamous]

The phrase death panel was designed to illicit a specific political response. But you're just in denial to say they don't exist. They have to. Anytime resources are scarce, there must be a system in place to distribute them. That means some people must be told that nothing will be done for them, and to spend their remaining time with the loved ones.

Right, but the reason it is absurd to have become so political is that the system was always in place. It was never going to happen more often than was already happening.

It's simply shrewd politics to proclaim a common practice as novel and particularly demonic.

But further, there is no such thing as a death panel--there is no group of people lauding over individual patients and proclaiming judgements on their treatment. It is simply protocol. More often than not, it exists as advice from physicians, which generally shouldn't be assumed to be influenced by their own costs--rather patient quality of life and cost to patient.

As far as cancer treatment goes, there is absolutely nothing novel about advising patients to forgo treatment that, while possibly extending their life an extra 5 or 8 months, these will be horribly painful and essentially meaningless lives. Families often don't understand what this kind of life means. The choice is whether or not you would want to live 5 relatively good months with your family where you can experience what life you have left, or 8 or 10 months attached to an IV and in constant pain, mixed with delirium.

Again, simply shrewd yet highly duplicitous politics.

 

[ivwshane]

Fuck man...

My costs in 2013 already went up by over $1000 just by what those motherfuckers did in capping the FSA's down to $2500. You know... those nasty FSA's that were there to help control/mitigate your out of pocket costs? My previous cap was $5200... AND I used every fucking penny of that FSA for my daughter who born at 1 pound 4 ounces has some "slightly" elevated medical needs.

Fuck the ACA... It hasn't done anything to make healthcare more affordable for my family.

Lol! So you hate the ACA because it didn't do anything for your situation? Perhaps you should have supported the republicans alternative. Which part of their plan would have helped you? Or perhaps you liked what we had before the ACA, maybe you would have got lucky and not hit a cap, let alone actually get covered.

But rage on brother because the alternatives are so much better! Perhaps you can try getting some help through charities, apparently, according to the right, they are aplenty and more than willing to help out a poor person such as yourself.

Your situation sucks but what ever you do, don't support any politician that supports a single payer or government run program, I wouldn't want you to miss out on the valuable, "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" lesson

 

[Thebobo]

The Daily Caller says I am to be outraged.

So

I am outraged.

 

[WackyDan]

Lol! So you hate the ACA because it didn't do anything for your situation? Perhaps you should have supported the republicans alternative. Which part of their plan would have helped you? Or perhaps you liked what we had before the ACA, maybe you would have got lucky and not hit a cap, let alone actually get covered.

But rage on brother because the alternatives are so much better! Perhaps you can try getting some help through charities, apparently, according to the right, they are aplenty and more than willing to help out a poor person such as yourself.

Your situation sucks but what ever you do, don't support any politician that supports a single payer or government run program, I wouldn't want you to miss out on the valuable, "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" lesson

Go fuck yourself. If you don't think that changing the FSA caps was strictly a tax grab then you've been drinking the fucking coolaid too long.

"poor person such as yourself." That comment right there is all I need to know about how you think. Apparently, anyone with an employer sponsored plan/self insured employer plan is "rich" and therefore should be able to burden the many costs of the ACA happily ever after.

Here's a little tidbit for you... My daughter had a Medicaid Card until she was three. I think I'm pretty fucking familiar with both sides of the system thank you.

So tell me... Why were the FSA caps implemented? Answer that for me seeing as you couldn't be bothered to come up with an intelligent response to my post.