Upcoming court case could soon "crush" the ACA entirely

[Matt1970]

Can you think of another time health care cost increased at a slower rate? Can you think of another law that reduced healthcare costs despite not being fully implemented?

You better get to a shelter! The sky is falling!

I can't think of any law that has reduced healthcare costs unless we are redefining reduced to mean increase at a slower rate. Sorry for wanting what I was promised, I am just kinda like that.

 

[Engineer]

I can't think of any law that has reduced healthcare costs unless we are redefining reduced to mean increase at a slower rate. Sorry for wanting what I was promised, I am just kinda like that.

Government and business promise stuff all the time and don't deliver. This is nothing new.

 

[ivwshane]

I can't think of any law that has reduced healthcare costs unless we are redefining reduced to mean increase at a slower rate. Sorry for wanting what I was promised, I am just kinda like that.

Yep, nor can you think of a business that reduced costs, so I guess you will have to settle for a reduction of the rate at which costs increase.

It must really suck for you since you could be paying "a lot more" for health insurance rather than just paying "more".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh. So it was an off topic rant tearing down de ebil gubmint, which was pretty much what I offered in the first place. Never pass up the chance for that, huh?

A successor to the ACA was mentioned as it often is. Once again there appears to be a disconnect between what is asked for and what that might look like considering the players involved. I provided a concrete example based on real world interaction where people are already harmed as a cautionary warning. You dump a pot roast on your chest. Any national system must work properly from the start because if it doesn't we are talking lives lost due to bureaucratic snafus. This is what you faithfully ignore and duh-vert from, to use your terminology. What you offered was foolishness to start with, a demonstration of your failure to comprehend, and finish by repeating the same error. The government isn't evil but it a lumbering and powerful entity which few would say is functioning well but many who agree appear willing to surrender their own lives to it. You ignore all that with the dismissal of concerns based on reality like you dismiss those harmed by it. Typical.

What I'm hoping is that these little interactions between us does is show just how dangerous blind faith like yours is. What others suggest would be the largest and most complex program ever undertaken assuming the goal would be the ownership of the healthcare system by government. Once implementation begins there is neither alternative nor remedy and one again you miss the gravity and scope of such a task. The government isn't the Christ you pretend it to be. It's a powerful and tool like radiation for cancer which can be beneficial, however giving it to be used by the ignorant, careless or incompetent wouldn't end well. You play your useful part by being a living Simplicio.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Government and business promise stuff all the time and don't deliver. This is nothing new.

Of course they don't. What they do is market themselves and that is a proven tactic. No one wants to take the time to understand what is needed or how to get there. They really want someone to tell them that they are off the hook, that they haven't any need to worry if they just trust.

 

[Fern]

This picture is way inaccurate. Maybe some can't afford it because the Republicans in many states refuse to allow the state medicaid expansion? Hrmmm.. guess your picture doesn't show that bit of truth now does it?

If you're on Medicaid you aren't 'affording' anything. Medicaid is just somebody else paying for it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Except for the fact that healthcare costs have been increasing at a slower pace than they were previously...so yeah I guess it's done a little since four years since it's passage and 1 year since 90% implementation.

Haha.

Obamacare only kicked in about 6 months ago, and only for a small fraction of those covered by HI.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Besides, universal single payer is Medicare for all, not VA for all. It's amazing to me that right-wingers don't understand this basic concept but feel qualified to debate the issue.

Medicare has price controls and elements of standards for health care. It's amazing to me that left-wingers "don't understand this basic concept but feel qualified to debate the issue".


Look, the problem is not who writes the check for payment, it's who calculates the bill.

Currently we don't have:

1. HC standards (like the rest of the world). I've linked to and posted quotes from the AMA and NE Journal of Medicine's study that showed in researching HC costs that patient cost for identical treatments varied by $100,000's with no medical explanation for the difference.

2. We don't have price controls (notwithstanding Medicaid and Medicare which many doctors won't now accept). Heck, don't even have access to price estimates/quotes for HC costs. (Good luck with broadly implementing price controls on doctors and hospitals.)

Single payer itself won't solve the problem of cost without major disruptive changes to the rest of the system.

People claiming single payer is the solution haven't thought it through.

Fern

 

[Newell Steamer]

When ACA is killed, the GOP will be handing out loaded guns and tobacco - it will be a glorious day of celebration!!!

 

[glenn1]

When ACA is killed, the GOP will be handing out loaded guns and tobacco - it will be a glorious day of celebration!!!

And when Single Payer goes into effect, Democrats will be handing out free abortions and welfare checks.

 

[OverVolt]

And when Single Payer goes into effect, Democrats will be handing out free abortions and welfare checks.

And a healthcare shortage. IE long wait times, greater demand than supply with a government set price is pretty much the definition of a shortage.

 

[ivwshane]

Haha.

Obamacare only kicked in about 6 months ago, and only for a small fraction of those covered by HI.

Fern

No, only the mandate kicked in 6 months ago, other things have already been implemented, small things that have helped slow down the rising costs of health care

 

[boomerang]

And when Single Payer goes into effect, Democrats will be handing out free abortions and welfare checks.

That's par for the course. They've been doing both of those for a long, long time. It's all about the votes.

It took four years to get the abomination that is Obamacare launched and it's been postponed on various levels by executive order more times than I can remember. To launch single payer nationwide would probably take well over a decade. Twelve to fifteen years would be my guess.

 

[Jhhnn]

Haha.

Obamacare only kicked in about 6 months ago, and only for a small fraction of those covered by HI.

Fern

Incorrect. Employer sponsored group plans are affected by the ACA & have been coming into compliance for several years, iirc.

 

[Jhhnn]

A successor to the ACA was mentioned as it often is. Once again there appears to be a disconnect between what is asked for and what that might look like considering the players involved. I provided a concrete example based on real world interaction where people are already harmed as a cautionary warning. You dump a pot roast on your chest. Any national system must work properly from the start because if it doesn't we are talking lives lost due to bureaucratic snafus. This is what you faithfully ignore and duh-vert from, to use your terminology. What you offered was foolishness to start with, a demonstration of your failure to comprehend, and finish by repeating the same error. The government isn't evil but it a lumbering and powerful entity which few would say is functioning well but many who agree appear willing to surrender their own lives to it. You ignore all that with the dismissal of concerns based on reality like you dismiss those harmed by it. Typical.

What I'm hoping is that these little interactions between us does is show just how dangerous blind faith like yours is. What others suggest would be the largest and most complex program ever undertaken assuming the goal would be the ownership of the healthcare system by government. Once implementation begins there is neither alternative nor remedy and one again you miss the gravity and scope of such a task. The government isn't the Christ you pretend it to be. It's a powerful and tool like radiation for cancer which can be beneficial, however giving it to be used by the ignorant, careless or incompetent wouldn't end well. You play your useful part by being a living Simplicio.

Nice wall of obfuscational text as a strawman. While some have argued for single payer in this thread, I have not. What I have argued is that you deliberately avoid the topic at hand, a legal challenge to the ACA.

I see no point in going on about something that doesn't exist in this country & may never. It's Chicken Little in her most stubborn mode.

My blind faith? Gawd. The only blind faith I've encountered in this thread is your firm belief in the conspiracy of single payer & the govt's ability to fuck that up the same way they'd fuck up a bigfoot investigation.

The ACA attempts to preserve what was a failing private insurance model, not destroy it. Whether it'll work well is another question, particularly for people adversely affected by the SCOTUS legislating from the bench, allowing states to opt out of having exchanges & medicaid expansion. Now the Right attacks the federal exchange created to partially fill that gap. They want to take away the subsidized insurance now enjoyed by residents in those states, people who would otherwise have no insurance. Those are honest hardworking families who simply suffer from depressed wages & lack of opportunity invoked by the biggest financial flimflam in history, trickle down economics & deregulation in support of the "Ownership Society".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nice wall of obfuscational text as a strawman. While some have argued for single payer in this thread, I have not. What I have argued is that you deliberately avoid the topic at hand, a legal challenge to the ACA.

I see no point in going on about something that doesn't exist in this country & may never. It's Chicken Little in her most stubborn mode.

My blind faith? Gawd. The only blind faith I've encountered in this thread is your firm belief in the conspiracy of single payer & the govt's ability to fuck that up the same way they'd fuck up a bigfoot investigation.

The ACA attempts to preserve what was a failing private insurance model, not destroy it. Whether it'll work well is another question, particularly for people adversely affected by the SCOTUS legislating from the bench, allowing states to opt out of having exchanges & medicaid expansion. Now the Right attacks the federal exchange created to partially fill that gap. They want to take away the subsidized insurance now enjoyed by residents in those states, people who would otherwise have no insurance. Those are honest hardworking families who simply suffer from depressed wages & lack of opportunity invoked by the biggest financial flimflam in history, trickle down economics & deregulation in support of the "Ownership Society".

First of all I didn't respond to you initially. I was responding directly and on topic to Engineers post.

Second, when the ACA was proposed I was against it because it wasn't what was needed. Instead effort to improve the system as a whole should have been the priority which would involve intelligent design with the goal of improving care and getting a grip on costs. IIRC you were on the "ebil gubment" kick then, defending the ACA against all comers. Well you got what you wanted.

So here you go about hard working people but not long ago you blew off others who not only weren't getting what they needed but were legally entitled to and yet were effectively denied access by law. No where did you display any sympathy whatsoever simply because these people, most of whom lived productive lives aren't important to you at all. "They got their stuff", like you know all about it.

You're done now.

 

[Jhhnn]

First of all I didn't respond to you initially. I was responding directly and on topic to Engineers post.

Second, when the ACA was proposed I was against it because it wasn't what was needed. Instead effort to improve the system as a whole should have been the priority which would involve intelligent design with the goal of improving care and getting a grip on costs. IIRC you were on the "ebil gubment" kick then, defending the ACA against all comers. Well you got what you wanted.

So here you go about hard working people but not long ago you blew off others who not only weren't getting what they needed but were legally entitled to and yet were effectively denied access by law. No where did you display any sympathy whatsoever simply because these people, most of whom lived productive lives aren't important to you at all. "They got their stuff", like you know all about it.

You're done now.

The ACA in no way prevents what you advocate. OTOH, it accomplished what it was intended to do, provide more American families with health insurance and more families with better health insurance via subsidized exchanges & medicaid extension. Only the SCOTUS has limited what was intended to be universal access along with their red state governing brethren.

Your initial diversionary rant into medicare problems was quite vague & disorganized, remains so even now. If I got the impression that you were just going on about how it's a pita for you rather than a real problem for beneficiaries, blame yourself. I intended them no slight.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[Jhhnn]

If by increased access you mean hospital admissions are down for 95% of hospitals in the country then yes its no better than George W. flying the mission accomplished banner.

He's a pharmacist so he knows how many people are getting scripts filled, how well the pharmacy is doing financially, if people seem like they are having a hard time paying for their medications, etc. He is a frontline healthcare worker and thus knows wtf he is talking about.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/the-decline-of-the-inpatient-5-observations.html

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...major-survey-findings-from-hospital-cfos.html

These are the things going on in reality. Declining volumes and increased operating costs for hospitals. This is highly politicized, but in reality, the ACA increased costs and decreased the amount of care people are getting (as there are now way less people utilizing healthcare), its simply a fact and it will take awhile for people to finally get it. The democrats in particular because they are burying a hole of denial about as deep as the republicans have been doing.

With my deductible looking like its going to increase I'm basically like... Don't get sick. Can't imagine I'm the only one in this situation.

That 95% figure came from where?

If a person seeks treatment at an ER vs a clinic, are they not "admitted" into the hospital?

 

[OverVolt]

That 95% figure came from where?

If a person seeks treatment at an ER vs a clinic, are they not "admitted" into the hospital?

Anyways

http://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...l-admissions-reach-weakest-levels-in-a-decade

And many more like it. "Only 5% saw a YOY increase" = 95% saw a YOY decline. (which is how it was worded in the article I first saw) Its based on a Citi Research survey.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-hospitals-admissions-idINBRE9BG18J20131217

You get the idea.

Anyway you can visit the ER and not be admitted that is correct. Lots of new rules on admissions. If you discharge someone and they come back for the same problem I think the hospital must eat cost of treatment for the second admission. But the insurance companies try to dictate how long of a stay they are willing to cover for XYZ problem (as short as possible of course). Its a mess.

In terms of... actual people in the hospitals its clearly less across the country.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anyways

http://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...l-admissions-reach-weakest-levels-in-a-decade

And many more like it. "Only 5% saw a YOY increase" = 95% saw a YOY decline. (which is how it was worded in the article I first saw) Its based on a Citi Research survey.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-hospitals-admissions-idINBRE9BG18J20131217

You get the idea.

Anyway you can visit the ER and not be admitted that is correct. Lots of new rules on admissions. If you discharge someone and they come back for the same problem I think the hospital must eat cost of treatment for the second admission. But the insurance companies try to dictate how long of a stay they are willing to cover for XYZ problem (as short as possible of course). Its a mess.

In terms of... actual people in the hospitals its clearly less across the country.

You're dodging. If visiting the ER & receiving treatment other than an exam, is the person admitted or not?

And if admissions are down, what effect if any can be shown wrt patient outcomes?

Should the goal of the ACA be to fill the beds of for profit hospitals, or something else?

They'd admit you for observation over a hangnail if they thought they'd get paid for it.

Your interpretation of statistics is woefully lacking, other than wrt motivated reasoning. If only 5% saw an increase, that does not mean that the other 95% had a decrease. Sheesh.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And when Single Payer goes into effect, Democrats will be handing out free abortions and welfare checks.

Free abortions for the poor would provide a huge net return-on-investment in terms of saving the government money.

 

[Darwin333]

Nice wall of obfuscational text as a strawman. While some have argued for single payer in this thread, I have not. What I have argued is that you deliberately avoid the topic at hand, a legal challenge to the ACA.

I see no point in going on about something that doesn't exist in this country & may never. It's Chicken Little in her most stubborn mode.

My blind faith? Gawd. The only blind faith I've encountered in this thread is your firm belief in the conspiracy of single payer & the govt's ability to fuck that up the same way they'd fuck up a bigfoot investigation.

The ACA attempts to preserve what was a failing private insurance model, not destroy it. Whether it'll work well is another question, particularly for people adversely affected by the SCOTUS legislating from the bench, allowing states to opt out of having exchanges & medicaid expansion. Now the Right attacks the federal exchange created to partially fill that gap. They want to take away the subsidized insurance now enjoyed by residents in those states, people who would otherwise have no insurance. Those are honest hardworking families who simply suffer from depressed wages & lack of opportunity invoked by the biggest financial flimflam in history, trickle down economics & deregulation in support of the "Ownership Society".

Why does everyone blame the insurance companies for the absurdly high cost of medicine in the US? Changing who pays for uber expensive shit isn't going to all by itself magically transform said uber expensive shit into cheap as dirt shit. My homeowners insurance isn't expensive because the insurance company is setting peoples homes on fire.