Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Whoops! ObamaCare Backers in Wisconsin Produce Report Showing That the Health Care

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386

    Whoops! ObamaCare Backers in Wisconsin Produce Report Showing That the Health Care

    Whoops! ObamaCare Backers in Wisconsin Produce Report Showing That the Health Care Overhaul Will Make Health Insurance More Expensive


    [QUOTE]Peter Suderman | September 6, 2011

    When Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services, which manages health programs within the state, wanted to get a better sense of how last year’s health care overhaul would affect insurance coverage within the state, they turned to Jonathan Gruber, a health policy expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who served as a consultant on both Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care overhaul and (somewhat controversially) President Obama’s nationwide successor program.
    Gruber is a frequent defender of ObamaCare as well as one of its architects. And the report was ordered under Wisconsin’s departed Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, who, after leaving the governor's office, signed on to an ObamaCare agitprop mill dedicated to highlighting “the stories of the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from this important law and how it will benefit millions more in the coming years.” So it's not exactly a hit job.
    The report Doyle ordered before leaving office certainly reveals something about how the law will affect hundreds of thousands of individuals in the state he used to govern, it's not all flattering. Indeed, it’s telling that despite bring ordered and authored by true-blue ObamaCare backers, a big part of what this report suggests is that the law will ultimately raise the health insurance costs for large numbers of the state’s residents.
    Naturally, Gruber’s leads with a smiley face, noting for the umpteenth time that the law is expected to increase health insurance coverage; approximately 340,000 of the state’s residents are expected to gain insurance coverage by 2016. Of course, about 170,000 of the newly covered will be shuffled into Medicaid, a program that’s wrecking state budgets and providing, at best, uncertain health benefits.
    Meanwhile expanding the state’s health insurance coverage will come at a significant cost to hundreds of thousands of individuals, especially within the individual market, where the law has the greatest effect. Gruber projects that the average individual market health insurance premium will cost about 30 percent more than if ObamaCare had never passed. For most individual market enrollees, the average premium increase will be even higher: 87 percent of the individual market is projected to see a premium price increase of 41 percent.
    Defenders of the law might note that more than half—about 57 percent—of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit from the law’s generous health insurance subsidies. But even discounting the enormous public cost of financing those subsidies (which account for roughly half of the law’s $950 billion price tag over the next decade), it’s still not much consolation for the majority of individual market enrollees.
    That’s because more than half the individual market will still end up paying more: “After the application of tax subsidies,” the report projects, “59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent.”
    One factor in the price increase is the addition of new coverage mandates that will make health insurance more expensive: An estimated 40 percent of the Wisconsin’s current individual market enrollees don’t carry coverage that meets ObamaCare’s minimum coverage standards. Thanks to the law, they’ll be required to purchase more expensive coverage.
    [B]Small businesses and their employees, meanwhile, will face a sort of coin flip—but one that’s weighted against them. Thanks to the law, 47 percent are expected to see their premiums drop by an average of 16 percent. But the other 53 percent are expected to see their health insurance premiums rise by 15 percent as a result of the law.[/B] That’s good news for those small employers who costs will go down, I suppose. But it’s not-so-good news for the even larger percentage of small businesses whose costs are projected to go up. Somehow I doubt that Doyle, the state’s ex-governor and recently minted ObamaCare propagandist, will find time to highlight their stories.
    [/QUOTE]

    Redistribution

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Trades;4132403]


    Redistribution[/QUOTE]

    i wonder how many people who are against Obamacare, don't have health insurance. My guess is 0.

    basic healthcare is a right.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132429]i wonder how many people who are against Obamacare, don't have health insurance. My guess is 0.

    basic healthcare is a right.[/QUOTE]

    Since when is it a right? I must have missed that in the constitution. Basic health care can be purchased on a per case basis.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,195
    [QUOTE=Trades;4132434]Since when is it a right? I must have missed that in the constitution. Basic health care can be purchased on a per case basis.[/QUOTE]

    Yes.

    And when you don't have it...just go to the ER, get patched up, skip on the bill and fork the cost over to people who pay for their insurance.

    Bbbbbbrilliant! :D

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4132439]Yes.

    And when you don't have it...just go to the ER, get patched up, skip on the bill and fork the cost over to people who pay for their insurance.

    Bbbbbbrilliant! :D[/QUOTE]

    I didn't have health insurance for about 6 years between when I got out of the Air Force and when I got married. I went to the doctor twice. Once for bad poison ivy and once for a badly sprained ankle I wanted to make sure wasn't broken. Both visits cost less than $1000 total combined. Had I known about catestrophic medical insurance I probably would have paid for it as a just in case.

    How come "poor" people can pay for iPods, cars, xboxes, cameras, alcohol, monthly cable, cell phone and other unnecessary things but can't buck up for their own health care? As I have said before I run my local rec department and the "poor" people whose kids play for free have the nicest Digital SLRs to photograph those samekids at their games. It is all about entitlement and lack of personal responsibility.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Trades;4132434]Since when is it a right? I must have missed that in the constitution. Basic health care can be purchased on a per case basis.[/QUOTE]

    Why are we the richest nation in the world but 36th in life expectancy?

    ... every other 1st world nation provides a basic level of healthcare to their
    citizens.


    A hospital can't refuse emergency treatment, but not everyone can afford treatment it's a real problem and the GOP doesn't have a solution.

    and yes healthcare can be purchased... advanced specialized healthcare. basic stuff should be covered. If we don't cover it, like PK points out the costs will just be passed on to everyone... it's not an opinion it's a fact.

    In that article you posted maybe short term insurance goes up for everyone, im ok with that if long term the costs go down across the board.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,892
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132458]Why are we the richest nation in the world but 36th in life expectancy?

    [/QUOTE]

    Failure to win another Super Bowl in over 40 years. :mad:

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,195
    [QUOTE=Trades;4132452]It is all about entitlement and lack of personal responsibility.[/QUOTE]

    Or...maybe it's because they realize they can get free health care via the ER.

    People will speed when cops aren't looking too, ya know :D

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132458][B]Why are we the richest nation in the world but 36th in life expectancy? [/B]

    ... every other 1st world nation provides a basic level of healthcare to their
    citizens.


    A hospital can't refuse emergency treatment, but not everyone can afford treatment it's a real problem and the GOP doesn't have a solution.

    and yes healthcare can be purchased... advanced specialized healthcare. basic stuff should be covered. If we don't cover it, like PK points out the costs will just be passed on to everyone... it's not an opinion it's a fact.

    In that article you posted maybe short term insurance goes up for everyone, im ok with that if long term the costs go down across the board.[/QUOTE]

    [URL="http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/17/accidents-murders-preemies-fat/print"]Print[/URL]|[URL="http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/17/accidents-murders-preemies-fat/email"]Email[/URL]
    [B][URL="http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/17/accidents-murders-preemies-fat"]Accidents, Murders, Preemies, Fat, and U.S. Life Expectancy[/URL][/B]

    [B]American health care to the rescue?[/B]

    [URL="http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey"]Ronald Bailey[/URL] | June 17, 2008


    [QUOTE]
    Last week, the National Center for Health Statistics announced that the average life expectancy for Americans has risen to an [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/08newsreleases/mortality2006.htm"]all-time high of 78 years[/URL]. In addition, record high life expectancy was recorded for both white males and black males (76 years and 70 years, respectively) as well as for white females and black females (81 years and 76.9 years). This is obviously good news. But a question nags—[B]why are people in other countries living longer on average than Americans?[/B] After all, [B]we are the country that spends the most money per capita on health care.[/B]
    For example, according to the World Health Organization, average life expectancy in Japan is 83 years; Australia, 82; Switzerland, 82; Canada, 81; Sweden, 81; Spain, 81; Italy, 81; France, 81; Germany, 80; and the United Kingdom, 79. In all, there are [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/06/11/life.expectancy.ap/index.html"]29 countries[/URL] whose citizens have longer life expectancies than Americans.
    So why do Americans die younger than people living in most other developed democracies? Well, there is the Michael Moore answer delivered in his "documentary" [I]Sicko[/I]—it's because we lack a benevolent government funded health care system. But life expectancy is not dependent on just medical care. For example, Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider point out that [B]deaths from accidents and homicides in America are much higher than in any other of the developed countries. Taking accidental deaths and homicides between 1980 and 1999 into account, they calculate that instead of being at near the bottom of the list of developed countries, U.S. life expectancy would actually [/B][URL="http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html"][B]rank at the top[/B][/URL][B].[/B]
    However as Carl Bialik, the invaluable [I]Wall Street Journal "[/I]Numbers Guy" columnist, notes Ohsfeldt and Schneider's analysis does not account for the fact a better health care system would have saved more accident victims and thus would have boosted life expectancy. In fact, in 2002, Harvard researchers argued that the U.S. [URL="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4D8133AF931A2575BC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon="]murder rate is much lower[/URL] than it would otherwise have been because so many assault victims are being saved by improved medical care. Nevertheless, Ohsfeldt and Schneider are likely right that U.S. life expectancy is being depressed by our higher accident and homicide rates.
    America's relatively high infant mortality rate also lowers our life expectancy ranking. A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why [URL="http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/"]U.S. infant mortality rates[/URL] are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada's at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.
    Life expectancy rates also depend on personal habits such as smoking, diet, and physical activity. Interestingly, U.S. smoking rates are lower (17 percent of adults) than for many developed countries with higher life expectancies. For instance, 30 percent of Japanese adults smoke daily. In France, 23 percent of adults smoke; Germany, 25 percent; Switzerland, 25 percent; Spain, 28 percent, and the U.K., 25 percent.
    The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries [URL="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/15/1861"]increases their risks[/URL] of heart disease and diabetes. A recent international survey reported that [URL="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/825_Frogner_multinational_comphltsysdata.pdf?section=4039"]31 percent[/URL] of Americans are obese ([URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/"]body mass index[/URL] over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30.
    Taking all these unhealthy proclivities into consideration, the American health care system is most likely not to blame for our lower life expectancies. Instead, American health care is rescuing enough of us from the consequences of our bad health habits to keep our ranking from being even lower.
    [/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    so all the murder vics that turn into assault vics in that article... do they have insurance?

    post an article saying insurance costs will go up. Well if people are helped, and the nation gets healthier, I'm ok with paying an extra 10 dollars a month. really i can afford it and you can too probably.

    and even if this doesn't work, at least it's an attempt. It's an attempt to help people.

    Whats the GOP's response? Repeal! oh yeah that will help people.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132458]Why are we the richest nation in the world but 36th in life expectancy?

    ... every other 1st world nation provides a basic level of healthcare to their
    citizens.


    A hospital can't refuse emergency treatment, but not everyone can afford treatment it's a real problem and the GOP doesn't have a solution.

    and yes healthcare can be purchased... advanced specialized healthcare. basic stuff should be covered. If we don't cover it, like PK points out the costs will just be passed on to everyone... it's not an opinion it's a fact.

    In that article you posted maybe short term insurance goes up for everyone, [B]im ok with that if long term the costs go down across the board[/B].[/QUOTE]

    But they won't. And yes I already know you will discount this because it is from the heritage foundation.

    [QUOTE]
    Obamacare Increases Health Insurance Premiums

    One of the major impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is that individuals and families will see higher health insurance premiums. [B]Obamacare imposes several costly new mandates and restrictions on health insurers and providers that will raise [I]health cares costs[/I] and therefore premiums.[/B] This paper lists a dozen factors that will contribute to higher premium costs.
    [B]1. Mandated Benefits [/B]
    Obamacare mandates that insurance companies cover a minimum package of benefits. The more comprehensive and generous the insurance, however, the more expensive it will be. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the benefit mandates in Obamacare—in combination with the limited cost-sharing—will increase premiums 27–30 percent in the individual market and up to 3 percent in the small group market.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn1"][1][/URL]
    [B]2. No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Services[/B]
    Preventive services are more likely to increase costs than reduce costs. A recent article in the journal [I]Health Affairs[/I] notes that 80 percent of preventative care services increase costs instead of saving costs.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn2"][2][/URL] By requiring more preventive services, costs will rise as health care consumption increases.
    [B]3. Limits on Cost-Sharing (on Covered Items) and Limits on Deductibles[/B]
    Individuals who do not have co-payments or deductibles lack “skin in the game” and thus have less incentive to economize on their use of health care services. This results in higher premiums for their health insurance. The CBO concludes that a 10 percent decrease in cost-sharing typically increases health care spending by 1–2 percent.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn3"][3][/URL]
    [B]4. Minimized Youth Discount[/B]
    The average 60-year-old consumes about six times as much health care as the average 20-year-old, but Obamacare mandates that insurers charge the oldest individuals in the risk pool no more than three times the lowest rate. As a result, young individuals will pay much more than the actuarially fair amount for their premiums. Management consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimated that premiums will rise by 45 percent for those age 18–24, 35 percent for those age 25–29, and 26 percent for those age 30–34.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn4"][4][/URL]
    [B]5. Elimination of the Good Health Discount[/B]
    In order to charge individuals a fair premium, insurers in the individual market engage in underwriting to determine applicant risk. That is, healthy individuals are less of a risk and thus enjoy lower premiums, the same way good drivers get discounts on their auto insurance. Obamacare bans this type of underwriting to rate premiums. The result will be higher premiums for the vast majority of individuals who are relatively healthy.
    [B]6. No Annual or Lifetime Limits on Health Benefits and Mandated Coverage of Children Under 26 [/B]
    These provisions are already taking effect, and they raise the cost of providing insurance. Several insurers have attributed a portion of their annual rate hikes for this year to provisions in Obamacare. Regence Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon is attributing 3.4 percent of its 17.1 percent rate increase to Obamacare, while Celtic Insurance Company in Wisconsin and North Carolina is attributing 9 percent of its 18 percent rate increase to Obamacare.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn5"][5][/URL]
    [B]7. No Pre-Existing Conditions Exclusion and Guarantee Issue[/B]
    Healthy individuals will be incentivized to remain or become uninsured, saving on premium expenditures since they would be able to purchase coverage if they need medical care. A greater concentration of relatively unhealthy individuals in the risk pool will increase average premiums.
    According to an analysis by Wellpoint, a health benefits company, the guarantee issue provisions in Obamacare will be mostly responsible for the rise in premiums.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn6"][6][/URL] Furthermore, a recent academic paper found that the existence of guarantee issue regulations more than doubled premiums for individual policies and nearly doubled premiums for family policies.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn7"][7][/URL]
    [B]8. Cost-Shifting Because of Low Medicare Reimbursement Rates[/B]
    Obamacare is set to reduce the reimbursements doctors and hospitals receive for Medicare. A 2006 [I]Health Affairs[/I] piece finds that a 1 percent relative decrease in the average Medicare price is associated with a 0.17 percent increase in the corresponding price paid by privately insured patients. The study found that cost shifting from Medicare and Medicaid to private payers accounted for 12.3 percent of the total increase in the price of private insurance from 1997 to 2001.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn8"][8][/URL]
    [B]9. Taxes on Insurers, Pharmaceutical Companies, and Medical Device Makers[/B]
    Obamacare includes many new taxes, including a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and annual fees on health insurance providers. A tax placed on insurance companies or medical device companies will be passed to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
    The CBO expects these taxes to be passed on to consumers.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn9"][9][/URL] Anthem estimated that premiums would rise by 2.5 percent in fully insured markets because of the annual fee on health insurance providers and by 0.5 percent because of the fees on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs and medical devices.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn10"][10][/URL]
    [B]10. Difficulty of Enforcing the Mandate [/B]
    Proponents of Obamacare argue that the individual mandate is the glue that holds the legislation together. Because the mandate was so unpopular, however, Congress gave the IRS limited ability to enforce it. It is unlikely, therefore, that the mandate will be effective at encouraging healthy individuals to purchase coverage and cross-subsidize the premiums for the old and the sick.
    According to Oliver Wyman, a weak mandate would cause “the average medical claims of members in the reformed individual market [to] be 50 percent higher than the average in the market today (not including medical inflation). This would translate into premium increases of approximately $1,500 for single coverage and $3,300 for family coverage in today’s dollars.”[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn11"][11][/URL]
    [B]11. Adverse Selection[/B]
    Since heath plans will be required to extend coverage to any qualified applicant and will not be allowed to vary premiums based on health status, healthier individuals will likely wait until they are sick before they buy health insurance. With fewer healthy individuals buying coverage, premiums will need to rise to cover the costs of the sick, which will in turn drive even more individuals in good or even fair health to drop coverage. The result could be a classic insurance adverse selection “death spiral” and an implosion of Obamacare.
    [B]12. Increased Demand for Health Care[/B]
    The expansion of insurance coverage through Obamacare will increase the amount of health care that previously uninsured people demand. CBO predicts that a major coverage expansion would cause total demand for health care services to increase by 2–5 percent.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn12"][12][/URL] Oliver Wyman estimates that the average uninsured will use about 20 percent more in health care services than the average individual, which will raise premiums in the individual market.[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn13"][13][/URL]
    [B]Wishes Do Not Trump Common Sense[/B]
    One of the central promises President Obama made during the presidential campaign was that he would “sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of [his] first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums#_ftn14"][14][/URL]
    Despite this promise, President Obama’s wishes do not trump basic supply and demand or common sense. If government requires that a product be made more generous and be available to more individuals, its cost will increase. There is no way around the fact that the vast majority of Americans will be paying higher prices for their insurance because of Obamacare.
    [B][I]Brian Blase [/I][/B][I]is Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies and [B]Rea S. Hederman, Jr.[/B], is Assistant Director of and Research Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.[/I]
    [/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132475]so all the murder vics that turn into assault vics in that article... do they have insurance?

    post an article saying insurance costs will go up. Well if people are helped, and the nation gets healthier, I'm ok with paying an extra 10 dollars a month. really i can afford it and you can too probably.

    and even if this doesn't work, at least it's an attempt. It's an attempt to help people.

    Whats the GOP's response? Repeal! oh yeah that will help people.[/QUOTE]

    15% of a family policy if you are paying rather than your employer is about $200/month not $10.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,386
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132475]so all the murder vics that turn into assault vics in that article... do they have insurance?

    post an article saying insurance costs will go up. Well if people are helped, and the nation gets healthier, I'm ok with paying an extra 10 dollars a month. really i can afford it and you can too probably.

    and even if this doesn't work, at least it's an attempt. It's an attempt to help people.

    [B]Whats the GOP's response? Repeal! oh yeah that will help people.[/B][/QUOTE]

    The GOPs response is repeal, tort reform, opening up health insurance across sales across state lines and a multitude of other things.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132429]i wonder how many people who are against Obamacare, don't have health insurance. My guess is 0.

    basic healthcare is a right.[/QUOTE]

    this post is pure, 100% garbage. It doesn't even remotely address the topic at hand. typical liberal distraction tactic.

    fact is, as predicted, the bill is having the reverse effect of its intention to lower medical insurance costs. I'd ask you to address that, but we all know you won't.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us