• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Will it be cheaper than if it wasn't implemented over the long run?

Id argue maybe. At some point, pricing becomes irrational and the market (buyers and sellers) just have to adjust. But we'd still have too many uninsured. Anyway, we wont ever know.

On PHs CBO ?, i checked and while I may be "racist", the CBO currently assumes a 3% trend. If we see a long run trend of 3%, I will tatoo "THE SHILL" on my forehead. SO, I think there is a 0.01% chance this thing come sin under projections over the long term.
 
Id argue maybe. At some point, pricing becomes irrational and the market (buyers and sellers) just have to adjust. But we'd still have too many uninsured. Anyway, we wont ever know.

On PHs CBO ?, i checked and while I may be "racist", the CBO currently assumes a 3% trend. If we see a long run trend of 3%, I will tatoo "THE SHILL" on my forehead. SO, I think there is a 0.01% chance this thing come sin under projections over the long term.

Garbage in garbage out. This is the way we've made pension problems "disappear" over the years.... Just assume a higher rate of return on investments.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/16/lower-rise-in-health-care-costs/7515185/

"Statisticians working with insurers to project next year's insurance premium rates say they expect to see an average increase of about 7%, well below the feared double-digit increases making recent headlines.

"The double-rate increases we've been hearing are probably exaggerated," says Dave Axene, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries, adding that there would be wide variation across the country. "That's not what we're seeing from the actuarial organizations ..."
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/16/lower-rise-in-health-care-costs/7515185/

"Statisticians working with insurers to project next year's insurance premium rates say they expect to see an average increase of about 7%, well below the feared double-digit increases making recent headlines.

"The double-rate increases we've been hearing are probably exaggerated," says Dave Axene, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries, adding that there would be wide variation across the country. "That's not what we're seeing from the actuarial organizations ..."

Lets not confuse ACA rate increases with overall market increases. I'm suggesting ACA rate increases for the exchanges could be high.
 
Howard Dean: Republicans in "Deep Trouble" For Opposing Obamacare

HOWARD DEAN: First of all, Mitch McConnell has never been terribly popular in Kentucky. He doesn't fit in. He has this kind of acerbic, humorless approach to everything. He's not an easygoing guy and that's a problem. The biggest problem, interestingly enough, Alison Lundergan Grimes comes from an old Kentucky Democratic family, well known.

But the thing that is really killing Mitch McConnell, I think, is the incredible success of Kentucky Kynect. They don't call it Obamacare, very smartly. But this is probably the best run state exchange in the country. Governor Beshear, a Democrat. And the fact that these people have health care after all this time and Mitch McConnell did everything he could to stop them from getting health care. That's got to be a factor here.

You are going to see this all over the country, in fact you already are seeing this all over the country. There's a poll today, the folks suggested that we ought to be on the offensive on Obamacare. We ought to be supporting it. We ought to be proud that we supported it because it is in fact providing people with health care. And nobody knows that better than the people of Kentucky. This is a poor state. A lot of people uninsured. A lot of those people have insurance [now]. That's not going to help Mitch McConnell.

###

ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC HOST: Governor Dean, to follow up on your contentions about the ACA. Politico is reporting today some very, very good news for Democrats which is a strong March enrollment surge along with indications that younger and healthier people have begun signing up. has changed certain attitudes around the country. Insurers are considering expanding their stake in the exchanges next year, bringing more of their business to states and counties. And some health plans that skip the new market places altogether this year are ready to dive in next year.

If you look at the numbers, what the CBO is projecting at this moment is by 2017 there will be 36 million people enrolled in exchanges and in Medicaid. This is an inevitability thing at a certain point. And yet the entire Republican arsenal is based on one cannon, which is the ACA.

DEAN: That's what their big gamble is, and it looks like they may have made a mistake. There was a poll out today, that for the first time in as long as I can remember, more Americans trusted the Democrats on health care than they did the Republicans. That can only mean that the attack on Obamacare is not going to be successful, if the numbers continue. Now this is early, but I've not seen the number like this in at least a couple of of years.

So, I really do think it's possible the tide is turning. If -- I think [Mary] Landrieu is going to win. I think [Kay] Hagan is going to win. I think [Mark] Begich is going to win no matter what. We've got some very good news from Arkansas tonight. We've got good news in some of the other parts of -- Kentucky, obviously.

So, the Senate is very much up for grabs. And if the current trend continues, and this is a new trend, I think that the Republicans are in deep trouble because they put all their eggs in the basket of Obamacare failing. They did everything they could to undermine it and undermine the president and it looks like the American people have finally figured that out.
 
Dean is a pretty big shill, so it's hard to take much that seriously especially when he's being interviewed by Alex Wagner (pretty hot though).

He does make a good point that Dems in some states aren't going to be hurt as much by Obamacare because the states handled their business.
 
Much of that data has nothing to do with our healthcare system. For example in the United States we consider newborns alive if they are born alive even if they die a few hours later. In many countries, including European countries, a child can survive for months and never be considered in their data. As a result our infant mortality is higher and our life expectancy is lower than if we were categorizing similar situations in a similar manner. Another "weakness" of the United States that is listed is traffic deaths. Tough to blame our healthcare system for that; likewise with outdoor air pollution deaths and obesity. Many sets of health data (I'll admit I haven't delved too deeply into this particular set) consider disparity of care in their ratings. In this category, if everyone in country A gets a mediocre level while some in country B get mediocre care and the others get good care country A is considered to have superior healthcare.

The most question is how can anyone in the US healthcare industry be trusted when we are 70th out of 132 nations in Health and Wellness

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi/components/com7
 
Much of that data has nothing to do with our healthcare system. For example in the United States we consider newborns alive if they are born alive even if they die a few hours later. In many countries, including European countries, a child can survive for months and never be considered in their data. As a result our infant mortality is higher and our life expectancy is lower than if we were categorizing similar situations in a similar manner. Another "weakness" of the United States that is listed is traffic deaths. Tough to blame our healthcare system for that; likewise with outdoor air pollution deaths and obesity. Many sets of health data (I'll admit I haven't delved too deeply into this particular set) consider disparity of care in their ratings. In this category, if everyone in country A gets a mediocre level while some in country B get mediocre care and the others get good care country A is considered to have superior healthcare.

That is one odd web site. But I work from the Health Care & wellness complex that is aimed at making and keeping people obese...When you start clicking away on those measures, you quickly see it has very little to do with the delivery of HC.
One of the more powerful statistics Ive seen on the quality of the US system is around survival rates once you are diagnosed. We have an incredible advantage over a lot of "progressive" countries.

Our system has a cost problem. If you are in the 85% of the population with insurance, you don't have an access or quality issue. Its a very different story with the 15% without insurance though. I wish we had tackled cost before we tackled access. Gonna make fixing cost a whole lot harder.
 
It's not like members of the hc industry are telling their patients to get fat, smoke, and not exercise.

We do. Every day. Its all part of of our master plan. RJ is spot on here. Scary how close to reality he is on this.
 
One of the more powerful statistics Ive seen on the quality of the US system is around survival rates once you are diagnosed. We have an incredible advantage over a lot of "progressive" countries.

Some of that data can be a negative CH. We develop a lot of expensive equipment that will run a lot of expensive tests and detect many maladies earlier than the rest of the world. This drives the cost of hc up. Even if our treatment is no more effective the fact that we discover the disease earlier makes it easier to survive for a five year period of time simply because five years ends earlier in the life of the disease. Of course there are some cases when earlier detection can make all the difference. I'm just not sure our system does a great job of funding only the useful early detections.
 
Some of that data can be a negative CH. We develop a lot of expensive equipment that will run a lot of expensive tests and detect many maladies earlier than the rest of the world. This drives the cost of hc up. Even if our treatment is no more effective the fact that we discover the disease earlier makes it easier to survive for a five year period of time simply because five years ends earlier in the life of the disease. Of course there are some cases when earlier detection can make all the difference. I'm just not sure our system does a great job of funding only the useful early detections.

Oh, I agree completely. It just kills me that people think w shave a sub standard system. We don't. Efficient? Nope. But this in it generally get very good care IMHO.
 
Some of that data can be a negative CH. We develop a lot of expensive equipment that will run a lot of expensive tests and detect many maladies earlier than the rest of the world. This drives the cost of hc up. Even if our treatment is no more effective the fact that we discover the disease earlier makes it easier to survive for a five year period of time simply because five years ends earlier in the life of the disease. Of course there are some cases when earlier detection can make all the difference. I'm just not sure our system does a great job of funding only the useful early detections.

You're describing lead-time bias, and it's a well-known and studied issue for any and all widespread screening programs in this country. There are controversies about this, to wit recent debates about screening mammography before age 50 or the use of PSA to look for prostate cancer, but you're going to have to provide some data to back up your claims or else I call bullshit. Vehement arguments take place about these issues among field experts, so to say that we don't see a worthwhile improvement in outcomes is dubious, at best.

I understand the point about overdiagnosing and overtreating, which leads to high costs, but that's not the same as what you're claiming. The simple truth is that we need to screen more and catch more diseases earlier, not the opposite.
 
somebody just posted this on Facebook. Can anyone confirm/deny that this was actually shown on Fox News?

BmXIpHcCMAEcXt3.jpg:large
 
That's got to be a photoshop.
 
Has to be a Photoshop, and even if not the y-axis has to be inverted.
 
Back
Top