health law and rising costs

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

obamacare is a mess, plain and simple. he said over and over that the economy was job one, and then focuses on this piece of garbage legislation. it sucks, and so does the economy. i really hope that it gets tossed by the supreme court. failing that, i hope it gets shot down in congress. it's another clue regarding how awful things are right now in d.c.
not sure which piece of crap is worse, obamacare or obamadetention.

What, specifically, do you not like about it? I'm not in love with it, but it's a vast improvement over the current situation, which is bankrupting people (in 2007, 62 percent of bankruptcies were linked to medical expenses, and 80 percent of people filing for bankruptcies had health insurance. Of those filing for bankruptcy who had health insurance, the average medical expenses were $18,000. That's what insurance wouldn't pay for. For those without insurance, $27,000).

The WHO rated France #1 in health care, with cost per person, per year of $3655 (11% of GDP). Japan was #10, $2696 pp, 8.4% GDP. Britain, #18, $2992 pp, 8.4% GDP. The USA was rated 37, with an average cost per person of $7,285 (15% of GDP). Stats are from 2007.

Clearly we're not getting our money's worth. We have to change the system. What we got now is costing us a lot of money, and not giving us the best care.

[Danzig]

what don't i like? mainly the exploding costs of premiums. all that 'free' stuff has to be paid for somewhere. and it is being paid for-in higher premiums.
a fix is definitely needed. but a bad fix isn't the answer.

keeping 'children' on to age 26, regardless of circumstance is a huge expense. no pre-existing conditions on any child under 18-a huge expense. 'free' testing, 'free' coverages for women. all of that is anything but free.

fat lot of good it will do to force insurers to carry more folks if those folks can't afford the coverage.

yes, we need to change the system. but this abomination isn't doing that. they should have focused on getting more people to buy it, rather than make what they're currently not buying more expensive-and make people that much more unwilling to purchase.

for many, the choice is made not to buy when offered. they don't feel coverage is a priority. many who could buy it choose not to, with the standard explanation that they never get sick, so they don't see a need.

obviously, coverage is cheaper the more who buy-and of course the healthy people would help cover those who aren't. but healthy, young adults don't wish to buy it-but now they will have to, and they will have to buy something that will suddenly cost more than what they could be buying right now.


arkansas has had a program in place for years for people who can't get coverage elsewhere because of pre-existing conditions. it's administered by the state. i'd imagine other states have similar.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

keeping 'children' on to age 26, regardless of circumstance is a huge expense.

No it's not a "huge expense". As the facts show, above, that increased premiums for those that choose to do so by 1-3%, paid for by themselves. It is no expense at all to anybody else. So, those parents have a choice: have their child have no health insurance, or having to buy insurance in the open market, vs paying 1-3% more on an existing family premium they were already paying for the child. You pay nothing for that. Neither do your tax dollars.

Facts are a terrible thing, when you suffer from Obama Sucks Derangement Syndrome.

they should have focused on getting more people to buy it,

Your lack of knowledge about the subject is showing. The exchanges are not even up and running yet. How are they supposed to "buy it" when it's not yet for sale? And you do realize that it's private insurance companies that will be selling? Not the government?

arkansas has had a program in place for years for people who can't get coverage elsewhere because of pre-existing conditions. it's administered by the state. i'd imagine other states have similar.

??? The state exchanges under Obamacares are going to be created, tailored and administered by the states. They have alot of freedom setting up the exchanges. In fact, a few states are just going right to single payer.

Face it: private insurers are trying to suck you dry before the law prevents them from further doing so, and they have you believing it isn't their fault or sole doing.

From Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/the...ance-premiums/

The Truth About Health Insurance Premiums
The new law has brought increases for some. But GOP leaders exaggerate.

Summary

Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut. But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit: rising medical costs.

Improved benefits required by the new law are responsible for a relatively small portion of the increases. Furthermore, the increases apply mostly to those buying policies individually, not the majority who get private insurance through employers. Those with employer-provided plans won’t see as much of an increase in premiums, since many of their policies already include the required benefits, a spokesman for an insurance trade association told us.

Some Republicans have claimed the law is responsible for "whopping" premium increases, but they have misrepresented the facts in the process.

For example: ... snip ...

[Danzig]

fact check, from 1/4:

http://factcheck.org/2012/01/promises-promises/

Promises, Promises
Posted on January 4, 2012

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is circulating a video of promises the then-candidate made during an Iowa caucus victory speech in January 2008, claiming he kept the promises he made that night. Not quite.

To be sure, the president signed a major health care law, ended the long war in Iraq and signed multiple “middle-class” tax cuts, just as his campaign boasts.

But the health care law isn’t expected to make insurance “affordable and available to every single American,” as Obama promised. And though he pledged to be a president who “brings our troops home” from Iraq, thousands of those U.S. troops are now stationed in neighboring Kuwait. Most glaringly, he has failed at “bringing Democrats and Republicans together” as he so optimistically promised four years ago.




At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made — that the health care law would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

fact check, from 1/4:

http://factcheck.org/2012/01/promises-promises/

At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made — that the health care law would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

Be sure you quote all of it
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/fac...ance-premiums/