• 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

You are simply being an industry shill to justify outrageous bills.

Here are a few studies not by the undustry:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html

There is abundance of other studies that say the same thing. It's simply a matter of fact. You can dance all you like, but you can't change facts.

That industry shill has completely owned your stupid ass on this thread over and over and over.
 
What's amazing is the right thought it would be perfect from Day one. No massive program ever has been. Some heads should have rolled, but that's normal.

Actually, "the right" was pretty adamant that it would be a clusterfuck from Day One.

Also when it was written, no one expected two dozen states to be allowed to not participate.

Except the people who actually wrote the bill and allowed the states to set up their own exchanges or have the feds do it. And of course, with that option, a bunch of Republican governors, and the states having to pay to setup exchanges they have otherwise little control over, who would logically expect so many states not to participate?
 
Actually, "the right" was pretty adamant that it would be a clusterfuck from Day One.



Except the people who actually wrote the bill and allowed the states to set up their own exchanges or have the feds do it. And of course, with that option, a bunch of Republican governors, and the states having to pay to setup exchanges they have otherwise little control over, who would logically expect so many states not to participate?

"Some health care experts said it was unthinkable that state leaders would really opt out, since the vast majority of the cost is covered by the federal government -- taxes their citizens will pay, regardless of whether the state opts in or out. For the first two years, the federal government pays for 100 percent of the expansion. Starting in 2017, the states start chipping in, but they will never contribute more than 10 percent of the cost."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-could-leave-many-uninsured/

That's not entirely true ELC.
 
HHS has been mostly eager to assist states in exchange- building and to be flexible about deadlines. The department has disbursed about $2 billion in grants to help states plan and design their websites. And it postponed by one month last week’s deadline for states to declare their intention to create their own exchanges.

Here’s something else that has been lost amid the questions: Any state that opts out of the effort will be stuck with a one-size-fits-all insurance exchange that, paradoxically, will be built by the federal government. In effect, the state will abdicate its traditional authority over health-insurance operations, and will be helpless to tailor its exchange to suit the desires of either local insurers or residents.

Such a state wouldn’t save money either, as the federal government is footing the bill for creating exchanges and, under the law, once exchanges are in operation, they are to be self- supporting -- through fees paid by insurance companies."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-excuse-not-to-build-insurance-exchanges.html
 
There is almost no news so when news comes out it is inevitably bad.

News is reported on the thread.

Typical defenders them come to decry the negative reporting.

CHDeac then gives us am honest look at the situation.

The board moderate calls him a shill.

People laugh.

Rinse and repeat.

I find the thread interesting just because you do receive somewhat regular updates from around the country on the implementation.

He certainly wasn't "honest" in saying that medical bills weren't the #1 cause for personal bankruptcies in the US. They clearly were before ACA. There is no doubt about this for at least 90+ of the previous forty years.
 
"Some health care experts said it was unthinkable that state leaders would really opt out, since the vast majority of the cost is covered by the federal government -- taxes their citizens will pay, regardless of whether the state opts in or out. For the first two years, the federal government pays for 100 percent of the expansion. Starting in 2017, the states start chipping in, but they will never contribute more than 10 percent of the cost."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-could-leave-many-uninsured/

That's not entirely true ELC.

I was actually referring to the cost of setting up the online exchanges and not Medicaid expansion.

Frankly, they should've seen some resistance to the Medicaid expansion once SCOTUS decided that issue. They obviously didn't when the bill was passed because (1) they didn't read the bill, and (2) they didn't have the foresight or the give-a-shittedness to recognize the infringement upon the states and the predictable legal challenges. Yes, the cost is covered initially, but in the long run that cost is covered less and it does not cover people who would've been eligible for Medicaid before the ACA but were not signed up for one reason or another. Many states believe that number will be unsustainable in the long run.
 
You are simply being an industry shill to justify outrageous bills.

Here are a few studies not by the undustry:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html

There is abundance of other studies that say the same thing. It's simply a matter of fact. You can dance all you like, but you can't change facts.

I can't speak to the CNBC study, but I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Himmelstein et al. study that your other two links cite.

Here's the gist of the research methods:

- Survey of several hundred individuals who had filed for bankruptcy

- Slightly more than half had a health “event” in prior two years, including auto accidents, pregnancy, and out of pocket spending exceeding $1000

- Authors do not establish whether individuals would have filed for bankruptcy had it not been for these events

- Authors conclude: Inadequate health insurance causes half of all bankruptcies and private health insurance coverage does not prevent bankruptcies

Needless to say, their conclusions came under quite a lot of criticism.

In my mind there's no doubt that insurance plays a major role in protecting financial assets, the magnitude isn't quite clear. It could be up to 50%, but it's most likely less.
 
You are simply being an industry shill to justify outrageous bills.

Here are a few studies not by the undustry:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html

There is abundance of other studies that say the same thing. It's simply a matter of fact. You can dance all you like, but you can't change facts.

One of these articles makes my point. Some people declared bankruptcy because they can't work / loss of income. That's my point. And $6,350 ($11,700 for a family) as defined in the law COULD still result in bankruptcies. Will the law help? Sure. But its not a panacea to this issue.

I'm still trying to figure out whose outrageous bills I'm justifying?
 
It's likely less, because you need it to be to fit your preconceived position.
"Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."

Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them. Health.com: Expert advice on getting health insurance and affordable care for chronic pain

Don't Miss
Don't get scammed by fake health plans
What's a recent college graduate to do about health insurance?
They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance." Health.com: Where the money goes -- A breast cancer donation guide

However, Peter Cunningham, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington, D.C., isn't completely convinced. He says it's often hard to tell in which cases medical bills add to the bleak financial picture without being directly responsible for the bankruptcies.

"I'm not sure that it is correct to say that medical problems were the direct cause of all of these bankruptcies," he says. "In most of these cases, it's going to be medical expenses and other things, other debt that is accumulating."

Either way, he agrees that medical bills are an increasing problem for many people. Health.com: 5 quick ways to stop back pain

"I think medical bills are something that a lot of families are having a lot of difficulty with and whether it's the direct cause of bankruptcy or whether it helps to push them over the edge because they already were in a precarious financial situation, it's a big concern and hopefully that's what medical reform will try to address," he says.

The study may overestimate the number of bankruptcies caused by medical bills yet underestimate the financial burden of health care on American families, because most people struggle along but don't end up declaring bankruptcy, according to Cunningham.

"Bankruptcy is the most extreme or final step for people who are having problems paying medical bills," he says. "Medical bills and medical costs are an issue that can very easily and in pretty short order overwhelm a lot families who are on otherwise solid financial ground, including those with private insurance." Health.com: Where to find money to pay for your major health bills

Health Library
MayoClinic.com: Health A - Z
His group's research found that medical bills unduly stress 1 in 5 families.

Either way, the high cost of health care is a problem that's probably getting worse for people in the United States, particularly since the economic picture became grimmer after the study was conducted. Health.com: Yoga moves to beat stress, insomnia, and pain

"The recession didn't happen until a year after our study," says Woolhandler. "We're quite sure that the problem of bankruptcy overall is worse, the numbers have been soaring, and the number this year is expected to be higher than it was before Congress tightened bankruptcy eligibility in 2005."

In 2005, bankruptcies peaked at two million filings. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend | Mixx it | Share
ENTER to win a monthly Room Makeover Giveaway from MyHomeIdeas.com

COPYRIGHT HEALTH MAGAZINE 2009

It would be in JAMA's interest not publish a Harvard based study that show's medical bills are the over 50% reason for personal bankruptcies.
 
rj, earlier your stated : "You can't lose your house BECAUSE of medical bills under ACA. For nearly every year since 1975, the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy and losing one's home has been medical bills. This can no longer happen." Your last post says the average medical bill that contributed to bankruptcy (for those with insurance) was $17,749.

If the OOP maximum for families under the ACA is $11,700, how can you claim bankruptcy from medical bills can no longer happen?
 
There are no more lifetime or annual limits under ACA. Few people lose their homes (which I stated earlier) for that amount without another reason.
 
The problem isn't so much about the insured, but the people losing insurance altogether after a medical issue, or losing their job and therefore their insurance.
 
HHS has been mostly eager to assist states in exchange- building and to be flexible about deadlines. The department has disbursed about $2 billion in grants to help states plan and design their websites. And it postponed by one month last week’s deadline for states to declare their intention to create their own exchanges.

Here’s something else that has been lost amid the questions: Any state that opts out of the effort will be stuck with a one-size-fits-all insurance exchange that, paradoxically, will be built by the federal government. In effect, the state will abdicate its traditional authority over health-insurance operations, and will be helpless to tailor its exchange to suit the desires of either local insurers or residents.

Such a state wouldn’t save money either, as the federal government is footing the bill for creating exchanges and, under the law, once exchanges are in operation, they are to be self- supporting -- through fees paid by insurance companies."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-excuse-not-to-build-insurance-exchanges.html

I'll just repost to save time. Is this incorrect?
 
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-i-m-getting-sick-of-defending-obamacare-20140211

"The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point—"If you like your health plan, you'll be able to keep your health plan." And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.

Defending the ACA became painfully harder when online insurance markets were launched from a multi-million-dollar website that didn't work, when autopsies on the administration's actions revealed an epidemic of incompetence that began in the Oval Office and ended with no accountability.

Then officials started fudging numbers and massaging facts to promote implementation, nothing illegal or even extraordinary for this era of spin. But they did more damage to the credibility of ACA advocates..."
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/11/insurers-now-outspending-kochs-group-on-obamacare-ads/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

"Companies such as Cigna and Kaiser Permanente poured about $40 million into television ads specifically related to Obamacare between Dec. 1 and Feb. 8, according to ad tracking firm Kantar Media. That is far more than AFP, which as of last week had dropped about $27 million on ads since August attacking politicians who supported the program."

There goes rj's "insurance company shills" argument.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/11/insurers-now-outspending-kochs-group-on-obamacare-ads/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

"Companies such as Cigna and Kaiser Permanente poured about $40 million into television ads specifically related to Obamacare between Dec. 1 and Feb. 8, according to ad tracking firm Kantar Media. That is far more than AFP, which as of last week had dropped about $27 million on ads since August attacking politicians who supported the program."

There goes rj's "insurance company shills" argument.

I have the opportunity to speak on the ACA to a lot of groups, orgs and consumers.

Half the time people tell me Im trying to sabotage the ACA. The other times people tell me Im an Obama shill.

I love being the target for both sides. Makes life fun.
 
I have the opportunity to speak on the ACA to a lot of groups, orgs and consumers.

Half the time people tell me Im trying to sabotage the ACA. The other times people tell me Im an Obama shill.

I love being the target for both sides. Makes life fun.

Double agent! I knew it.
 
Back
Top