Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jun 2012, 3:53 pm

I apologize to Danivon for posting an entire article. Its from a newspaper I subscribe to and I don't know that all of you have access. Point is, the author, a business columnist in a conservative newspaper postulate that the confirmation of Obama care as constitutional is likely to provide added stimulus to the economy. I'd be interested if anyone can poke a hole in her reasoning?
Dianne FrancisJune 30
One of my relatives is among the 130 million Americans with a pre-existing medical condition who, without adequate healthcare insurance, could face financial ruin if his disease recurs. Roughly half of the personal bankruptcies in the United States are due to excessive medical bills.
He was downsized recently and since then has postponed vacation plans, buying a vehicle and generally battened down the hatches financially. So have millions more because, before this week’s Supreme Court decision to uphold President Barack Obama’s health reforms, people without employer-paid medical benefits could only get federal coverage for two years, then were cast adrift without insurance. Naturally, in the noisy U.S. political arena the usual suspects, on both sides of the aisle and issue, are claiming that the decision is energizing their base. The decision will play into both their narratives so little will be changed politically.
All I know is that a Rubicon has been crossed and now whatever the opposition proposes had better address the anxiety and needs of the populace. Many are already benefitting from the implementation of this legislation that has been underway since its passage months ago.
Republicans are about to realize that only by extending the healthcare safety net (governments already pick up 50% of costs) can spending be reduced and the economy can recovery faster.
Not surprisingly, the news was greeted with relief in my family, and they will now be able to take a vacation and go out to eat. This is the direct effect of social safety nets: When the biggest fears people have are removed, spending and investing will result. Job growth will accelerate and, coupled with $3-a-gallon gasoline this summer, it might be very unwise to bet against the incumbent this fall.
The good news is that, win or lose, President Obama has succeeded, after decades of attempts, in providing the type of health care the rest of the developed world provides. Even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and convinces Congress to repeal this legislation, something else just as effective and generous will have to take its place.
Universal health care is not just smart and fair social policy; it is also smart economic policy.
It works this way: If a worker in Canada or Europe or Japan loses his or her job, it’s a psychological and income blow. But if an American worker loses his or her job, the family faces financial ruin if sickness strikes any member because they are without health care coverage. Worse yet, if a major illness is diagnosed during a period of unemployment, a worker becomes unemployable, bringing about a life sentence of poverty
This reality is why, in large measure, Americans have dramatically deleveraged and savings rates have soared since the collapse of its economy in 2008. And that pent-up spending potential won’t change overnight but is in stark contrast to other economies during this difficult period.
Romney can pledge repeal to his Tea Party, but the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President and the Supreme Court have all blessed this legislation. And, to boot, it was based in large measure on a similar scheme that Romney as Governor of Massachusetts enacted.
Instead of saying congratulations, Romney issued a call to arms to try and energize the extremists in his party so they don’t question his affiliation. But his alternative must achieve what Obamacare addresses:
1. The U.S. spent 16.2% of its GDP on health care plus up to 3% more on litigation concerning medical bills while other countries spend 10% and nothing on litigation because bills are paid by everyone. Lawsuits to recoup medical costs will slow because of Obamacare.
2. People with serious illnesses are uninsurable and are stuck in jobs they cannot leave or remain unemployed because they are unemployable. This will end if everyone’s covered.
3. Tens of millions of uninsured people in the U.S. end up with health problems that become a drain on society and economy. Under this reform, the 50 million uninsured people, mostly young healthy people, will have to be insured or pay fines, which will reduce overall costs because the paying base will be spread over the entire population.
4. Doctor, nursing, hospital and drug costs are out of control in the U.S. because of litigation and greed. American doctors over-service those with health insurance and fear of litigation has led to over-prescribing, testing and excessive costs. That fear has been removed.
The next step will allow patients to directly access coverage through state-run health care exchanges. They will have to compete in a new environment. Now it is illegal for them to be denied coverage for medical treatment, or be charged more due to health problems. Forcing the exchanges to compete will save costs or result, more likely, in disintermediation and governments becoming the insurers, as is the case in Canada and elsewhere.
Despite an irrational hatred of governments, America’s private-sector health experiment has failed abysmally and is on its way out. Governments outside the U.S. deliver medical care better and cheaper. The proof exists all over the world, except in the minds of partisans who would defend the indefensible.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15861
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Jun 2012, 4:20 pm

What newspaper did you steal/copy this from?

You never know, I may be able to see it with a link, and so may others. I don't disagree with it much, but I wish you'd be more repectful of your sources.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6620
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Jun 2012, 5:27 pm

Gee, that was hard. First search on Google.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/29/why-obamacare-will-help-with-the-u-s-economic-recovery/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2012, 6:15 pm



They don't have google in Canada!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2012, 6:29 pm

rickyp wrote:I apologize to Danivon for posting an entire article. Its from a newspaper I subscribe to and I don't know that all of you have access. Point is, the author, a business columnist in a conservative newspaper postulate that the confirmation of Obama care as constitutional is likely to provide added stimulus to the economy. I'd be interested if anyone can poke a hole in her reasoning?


1. Is she a conservative? Not just by Canadian standards? (really, I have no idea)
2. How many holes do there have to be before she is wrong?

One of my relatives is among the 130 million Americans with a pre-existing medical condition who, without adequate healthcare insurance, could face financial ruin if his disease recurs.


Um, note the phrase "without adequate insurance, could . . ."

There are not 130 million Americans denied healthcare insurance. She throws out a "if they had inadequate insurance" hypothetical. Weak way to start.

When the biggest fears people have are removed, spending and investing will result. Job growth will accelerate and, coupled with $3-a-gallon gasoline this summer, it might be very unwise to bet against the incumbent this fall.


That's the biggest fear people have? Really? So, why, if there are really 130 terrified Americans and 30 million uninsured has Obamacare consistently polled badly?

Here's a bet: the economy will NOT take off. That's her take. I say she's wrong. Businesses will not hire because they just got kicked in the face. Their costs are going up. Taxes are going up on many different items--including medical equipment.

Plus, we have Taxmageddon coming. There is massive uncertainty and Obamacare getting through the USSC is not going to solve that. Far from it.

The good news is that, win or lose, President Obama has succeeded, after decades of attempts, in providing the type of health care the rest of the developed world provides. Even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and convinces Congress to repeal this legislation, something else just as effective and generous will have to take its place.


More effective; less generous. Obamacare is nothing less than wealth redistribution poorly done.

Universal health care is not just smart and fair social policy; it is also smart economic policy.


She's no conservative. She makes all your arguments, but cogently.

1. The U.S. spent 16.2% of its GDP on health care plus up to 3% more on litigation concerning medical bills while other countries spend 10% and nothing on litigation because bills are paid by everyone. Lawsuits to recoup medical costs will slow because of Obamacare.


Maybe. But, the bigger problem is malpractice, which Obamacare didn't touch.

She's a liberal businesswoman. If she thinks American business is about to take off, she should buy the stocks I'm selling. She'll be broke.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2012, 8:06 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:When the biggest fears people have are removed, spending and investing will result. Job growth will accelerate and, coupled with $3-a-gallon gasoline this summer, it might be very unwise to bet against the incumbent this fall.


That's the biggest fear people have? Really? So, why, if there are really 130 terrified Americans and 30 million uninsured has Obamacare consistently polled badly?

Here's a bet: the economy will NOT take off. That's her take. I say she's wrong. Businesses will not hire because they just got kicked in the face. Their costs are going up. Taxes are going up on many different items--including medical equipment.

Plus, we have Taxmageddon coming. There is massive uncertainty and Obamacare getting through the USSC is not going to solve that. Far from it.


I dredge this old chestnut up mostly because it's funny to look at rickyp's economic predictions, but also because the reality of the Obamacare taxes is beginning to set in. As I predicted, they're job-killers, not job creators:

Sixteen Democratic senators who voted for the Affordable Care Act are asking that one of its fundraising mechanisms, a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices scheduled to take effect January 1, be delayed. Echoing arguments made by Republicans against Obamacare, the Democratic senators say the levy will cost jobs — in a statement Monday, Sen. Al Franken called it a “job-killing tax” — and also impair American competitiveness in the medical device field.

The senators, who made the request in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are Franken, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Robert Casey, Debbie Stabenow, Barbara Mikulski, Kay Hagan, Herb Kohl, Jeanne Shaheen, and Richard Blumenthal. All voted for Obamacare.

Two other Democrats, senators-elect Joe Donnelly and Elizabeth Warren, also signed the letter. Donnelly voted for Obamacare as a member of the House. Warren was not in Congress at the time.

“The medical technology industry directly employs over 400,000 people in the United States and is responsible for a total of two million skilled manufacturing jobs,” the senators wrote in a December 4 letter to Reid. “We must do all we can to ensure that our country maintains its global leadership position in the medical technology industry and keeps good jobs here at home.”

Beyond that, the senators say, the medical device industry “has received little guidance about how to comply with the tax” — a reference to the apparently confused and halting nature of the Obama administration’s implementation of Obamacare.


Even liberal Senators are coming to grips with it, but I'm surprised they didn't quote me. :uhoh:
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 12 Dec 2012, 8:47 am

The great news is that we don't have to listen to predictions of what will happen with obamacare. It will be implemented and we will see the impact.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2012, 9:42 am

freeman2 wrote:The great news is that we don't have to listen to predictions of what will happen with obamacare. It will be implemented and we will see the impact.


Um, we're already seeing the impact. As I cite above, Democratic Senators begging for a tax not to be levied.

Are medical insurance costs going down? What's the big plus so far?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 12 Dec 2012, 9:49 am

It is not fully implemented until 2014--get back to me in 2016
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2012, 9:59 am

freeman2 wrote:It is not fully implemented until 2014--get back to me in 2016


Right, so all the bad stuff along the way is just "gravy." :frown:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Dec 2012, 11:33 am

You don't have to wait for 2016 to start to see effects from "Obamacare".

Consumers saved nearly $1.5 billion in 2011 as a result of rules in President Obama's healthcare law that limit what insurance companies can spend on expenses unrelated to medical care, including profit, a new analysis shows.

Much of those savings -- an estimated $1.1 billion -- came in rebates to consumers required because insurers had exceeded the required limits.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/05 ... s-20121205

They'll be more to come. And these rebates, plus the extended coverage will make the program more and more popular. Sure, companies that make money from the medical industry, like the medical technology industry will bitch complain and make all kinds of claims . But its those industries that have contributed most to runaway medical inflation. And they need to be reined in... And their claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Meanwhile lower insurance costs, and rebates , go to the middle class. Who need relief more than the medical technology industry.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2012, 12:19 pm

rickyp wrote:You don't have to wait for 2016 to start to see effects from "Obamacare".

Consumers saved nearly $1.5 billion in 2011 as a result of rules in President Obama's healthcare law that limit what insurance companies can spend on expenses unrelated to medical care, including profit, a new analysis shows.

Much of those savings -- an estimated $1.1 billion -- came in rebates to consumers required because insurers had exceeded the required limits.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/05 ... s-20121205


Oh brother.

The article says this was primarily true of those who bought as "individuals." What percentage of the market is that?

Also, if you think you can just mandate lower costs without ripple effects, then you don't understand markets.

Of course, the whole idea of covering more people for less money with no change in care level is ridiculous, but I suppose we'll have to watch it unravel for you to believe it.

From your article:

But premium growth, although slower than in years past, continues to outpace inflation and wage growth, a major challenge to the president's law, which held out the promise of lowering healthcare costs.

The average cost of an employer-provided family health plan jumped 4% to $15,745 between 2011 and 2012, a cost shared by employers and employees, according to an annual survey released in September by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

There is evidence that premium increases are driven largely by rising medical costs, not profit-taking. And insurance companies continue to vigorously oppose the standards.

"The MLR completely ignores the real driver of premium increases," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington lobbying arm.

Sara Collins, Commonwealth Fund vice president for affordable health insurance, said the findings indicated that insurers must continue to be scrutinized. "It will be crucial to monitor insurers' responses to this regulation over time to ensure that all purchasers and consumers benefit from the savings the law is designed to encourage," she said.


Let's say, for laughs, the Times has it right and there were $1.5B in savings.

Are we supposed to believe the insurance companies just ate that?

Are we supposed to believe that government oversight, which will continue to grow, is free?

Btw, new taxes will also kick in on those with insurance in 2014. Is that "savings?"

Many States are refusing to set up exchanges. The Feds will have to do it. Guess what? More costs.

They'll be more to come. And these rebates, plus the extended coverage will make the program more and more popular. Sure, companies that make money from the medical industry, like the medical technology industry will bitch complain and make all kinds of claims . But its those industries that have contributed most to runaway medical inflation. And they need to be reined in... And their claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Meanwhile lower insurance costs, and rebates , go to the middle class. Who need relief more than the medical technology industry.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Dec 2012, 8:09 pm

fate
Of course, the whole idea of covering more people for less money with no change in care level is ridiculous, but I suppose we'll have to watch it unravel for you to believe it
.

Yes.How could this possibly be accomplished? If only somewhere in the Western world there was a system that had managed to provide equal or better care, for the whole populace, for only 2/3rds the GDP that the US system manages..
.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4660
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Dec 2012, 5:18 am

Which western country model did ACA follow? It seems that it is so convoluted relative to what other countries have.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 13 Dec 2012, 7:28 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's say, for laughs, the Times has it right and there were $1.5B in savings.

Are we supposed to believe the insurance companies just ate that?

Are we supposed to believe that government oversight, which will continue to grow, is free?


Nearly every small employer I know got a check back from their health insurance company this year. It was GREAT. My understanding is that ObamaCare limits the profits Aetna and the others can make and if they make too much they have to give back a rebate. Most consumers didn't see it, because it went to the people who pay the premiums: the employers (I didn't say job creators. I wanted to, but passed.)

Mine was a little more than half my firm's monthly premium, enough for a warm fuzzy feeling, but not enough to make a huge difference. But I hate paying for insurance and knowing that their profit is legally limited and if they make too much they've got to give me back some of my money? That's fantastic. You want to think of this as a cost. OK. I'd rather think of it as a tax rebate. A**hole insurance companies can no longer legally gouge me. What's not to like?