• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Budget Office Lowers Its Estimate on Federal Spending for Health Care

jonny5 said:
It appears we're just shifting costs around, with federal spending on healthcare, the subject in the op that is apparently supposed to be lower, dominating federal spending.
Click to expand...

The subject of the OP is not "federal spending on health care is going to decrease"
 
sangha said:
:lamo

In other words, it was debunked
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. Misrepresenting the conclusions of a study doesn't invalidate the study. The study conclusions still need to be challenged which your source doesn't actually do.

IOW, the study is wrong, but it's right!! :screwy
Click to expand...

Nope. Again, the Forbes article made claims based on individual states that had limited survey coverage, the Morgan Stanley survey drew conclusions from the aggregated data. Whereas the Forbes article claimed state by state increases, the Morgan Stanley study made nationwide claims based on all the data.

I have a feeling you understand all of this but are just playing stupid because it better serves the point you are trying to make.


Umm, the right predicted people's costs would skyrocket and the opposite happened and premiums did not go up 90% as MS claimed.
Click to expand...


Read the actual study. (PDF)

Nowhere does it say that insurance went up 90%. The study states that nationwide the average jump was 11% in the individual market and 12% in the small group market, based on surveys of major providers. This is a drastic increase is growth rate over the last 3 years.

For instance, here is the nationwide rate increase for the individual market in the last 3 years (1 BPS= 1/100th of 1%):

rate increase.PNG

The jump corresponds with the beginning of open enrollment in ACA.

The same trend shows in the small group plans:

rate trend 2.jpg

All you have provided is evidence that Forbes used the study wrong. The Growth Rate of small group insurance increased by 97% over 4Q 2013, which itself was a 218% growth rate increase over 3Q 2013 (the last quarter before open enrollment).

The step increase into open enrollment was even more severe in the individual market with a 424% jump in growth rate from 3Q2013 to 4Q2013.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
The subject of the OP is not "federal spending on health care is going to decrease"
Click to expand...

I guess its a lot easier to move the goalposts....

Apparently, this reduction in costs is bad news because it will delay the collapse of the socialist state. It was predicted in 1934, and the country has been floundering since then, with barely any economic growth and an economy that is so bad it only produces 25% of the worlds GDP with 5% of the population. :roll:
 
Not to mention Medicare patients are busy looking for doctors that will take them.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess its a lot easier to move the goalposts....

Apparently, this reduction in costs is bad news because it will delay the collapse of the socialist state. It was predicted in 1934, and the country has been floundering since then, with barely any economic growth and an economy that is so bad it only produces 25% of the worlds GDP with 5% of the population. :roll:
Click to expand...

The reduction in cost is a prediction. Maybe the CBO factored in conservative victories in 2014 and 2016.
 
Oh, and by the way, as we know from objective studies, premiums didnt skyrocket (despite the chicken little Conservative pronoucements) in 2014.

And despite the Chicken Little pronouncements that there was a delay in the increases (at DP, this is often done in the same thread... the skyrocket changes into next years skyrocket, mysteriously), and we will see those increases NEXT year... it looks like the CBO says thats pretty doubtful.

Smaller premium hikes forecast in 2015 for Obamacare - Jennifer Haberkorn and Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

Insurance premiums under Obamacare are projected to rise less than 3 percent in 2015, a smaller-than-expected jump as the health insurance exchanges enter their second year.
Click to expand...

And they also say:

The budget estimates now project premiums to be about 15 percent lower in 2016 than initial projections four years ago.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Not to mention Medicare patients are busy looking for doctors that will take them.
Click to expand...

Look at all the money they might be saving in the future by making it harder to translate your health insurance into actual healthcare!
 
jmotivator said:
The reduction in cost is a prediction. Maybe the CBO factored in conservative victories in 2014 and 2016.
Click to expand...

The CBO can factor nothing in that does not exist - they go strictly off of existing law.

This program is going to be like Medicare. Eventually, the GOP will end up claiming it as their own, and dropping the term 'Obamacare'.
 
clownboy said:
Not to mention Medicare patients are busy looking for doctors that will take them.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. I forgot about this Chicken Little meme.

Report: More doctors accepting Medicare patients

I think its something like 96% of physicians take Medicare, and the ones who dont generally dont take ANY insurance.


How about the long lines outside doctors offices because too many people will want to see doctors? That was funny too.:lol:

These stories are almost as good as how premiums will skyrocket (NEXT year, natch) and the program that is designed to make insurance more accessible will make people lose their insurance. And the funny thing is, some people fall for it year after year! :lamo
 
jmotivator said:
No, it wasn't. Misrepresenting the conclusions of a study doesn't invalidate the study. The study conclusions still need to be challenged which your source doesn't actually do.



Nope. Again, the Forbes article made claims based on individual states that had limited survey coverage, the Morgan Stanley survey drew conclusions from the aggregated data. Whereas the Forbes article claimed state by state increases, the Morgan Stanley study made nationwide claims based on all the data.

I have a feeling you understand all of this but are just playing stupid because it better serves the point you are trying to make.





Read the actual study. (PDF)

Nowhere does it say that insurance went up 90%. The study states that nationwide the average jump was 11% in the individual market and 12% in the small group market, based on surveys of major providers. This is a drastic increase is growth rate over the last 3 years.

For instance, here is the nationwide rate increase for the individual market in the last 3 years (1 BPS= 1/100th of 1%):

View attachment 67170038

The jump corresponds with the beginning of open enrollment in ACA.

The same trend shows in the small group plans:

View attachment 67170039

All you have provided is evidence that Forbes used the study wrong. The Growth Rate of small group insurance increased by 97% over 4Q 2013, which itself was a 218% growth rate increase over 3Q 2013 (the last quarter before open enrollment).

The step increase into open enrollment was even more severe in the individual market with a 424% jump in growth rate from 3Q2013 to 4Q2013.
Click to expand...

Lots of words, but none of them explain how the MS study can be valid when it only surveyed one insurer in 11 states
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, yes. I forgot about this Chicken Little meme.

Report: More doctors accepting Medicare patients

I think its something like 96% of physicians take Medicare, and the ones who dont generally dont take ANY insurance.


How about the long lines outside doctors offices because too many people will want to see doctors? That was funny too.:lol:

These stories are almost as good as how premiums will skyrocket (NEXT year, natch) and the program that is designed to make insurance more accessible will make people lose their insurance. And the funny thing is, some people fall for it year after year! :lamo
Click to expand...


You do like to pull all of your statistics from pre-ACA years, don't you?

USA Today doesn't report the whole store between 2010 and 2012 (shocker!)

WSJ in that same period reported on the story a bit more in depth.

Doctors participating in Medicare dropped 3% in those two years, and a 3% decrease in Medicare Non-Par physicians, totally a 6% drop in Physicians participation rate.

Also interesting is the recent report of Medicare spending in 2012.

It clearly shows that about 75% of the doctors who participate were paid, on average, about $30,000/doctor. About enough to pay for the employee managing the Medicare claims.

And that was before ACA slashed payouts.

So let's reconvene when the next survey comes out. Shall we?
 
Threegoofs said:
Ask the CBO.

I'd guess its retrospective adjustments on GDP estimates.
Click to expand...

Maybe the problem is that the graph didn't come from the CBO.

The CBO report for 2014, however, assumes a 24% cut to Medicare reimbursement rates in 2015 will go into effect. That alone explains the difference between the two estimates.
 
jmotivator said:
You do like to pull all of your statistics from pre-ACA years, don't you?

USA Today doesn't report the whole store between 2010 and 2012 (shocker!)

WSJ in that same period reported on the story a bit more in depth.

Doctors participating in Medicare dropped 3% in those two years, and a 3% decrease in Medicare Non-Par physicians, totally a 6% drop in Physicians participation rate.

Also interesting is the recent report of Medicare spending in 2012.

It clearly shows that about 75% of the doctors who participate were paid, on average, about $30,000/doctor. About enough to pay for the employee managing the Medicare claims.

And that was before ACA slashed payouts.

So let's reconvene when the next survey comes out. Shall we?
Click to expand...

First, you should link to an article that doesn't require a subscription

Secondly, the number of doctors who accept Medicare has increased and is at a record high. More than 90% accept Medicare

Thirdly, Medicare reimbursements to proiders have increased, not decreased

And finally, doctors do not have a separate clerk to handle medicare claims. Their billing clerks handle all their claims.

PS - The page you link to in your 2nd link doesn't say the things you claim it says

Why do you lie?
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, and by the way, as we know from objective studies, premiums didnt skyrocket (despite the chicken little Conservative pronoucements) in 2014.

And despite the Chicken Little pronouncements that there was a delay in the increases (at DP, this is often done in the same thread... the skyrocket changes into next years skyrocket, mysteriously), and we will see those increases NEXT year... it looks like the CBO says thats pretty doubtful.

Smaller premium hikes forecast in 2015 for Obamacare - Jennifer Haberkorn and Brett Norman - POLITICO.com



And they also say:
Click to expand...

More playing with statistics. They say things like "Ninety percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicare patients". Of course when you look at the reality on the ground, those physicians that don't accept new Medicare patients just don't meet their arcane definition of "office-based physicians". It's an old trick. Good to see you falling for it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Let me tell you about the ideological brick wall.

Last year, all we heard from conservatives would be how the ACA will lead to 'skyrocketing' costs, 'skyrocketing' premiums, massive loss of coverage (still a nutty concept), etc etc etc.

Come November, I remember being concerned about reenrolling in my same Heath plan. Would it change dramatically? Would it get unaffordable?

Nope. Mostly the same plan. Lower increase than usual. I heard the same story from friends who own companies, and friends who work for forms both large and small. A big nothingburger.

But guys like you are still seeing skyrockets.

You can only cry wolf so many times before losing credibility. The GOP lost me in about 2002. I think there are a long line of refugees behind me.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because the mandate for large corporations doesn't go into effect until 1/1/15, or even later for smaller corporations.....that is if Obama doesn't delay it again.
 
Gill said:
Maybe that's because the mandate for large corporations doesn't go into effect until 1/1/15, or even later for smaller corporations.....that is if Obama doesn't delay it again.
Click to expand...

oh yes. The mandate. That keeps getting held over our heads... because that will do.... something.

Chicken Little, mandate version. Coming to a midterm election to you soon (after the skyrocketing premium meme craps out)!
 
Threegoofs said:
oh yes. The mandate. That keeps getting held over our heads... because that will do.... something.

Chicken Little, mandate version. Coming to a midterm election to you soon (after the skyrocketing premium meme craps out)!
Click to expand...

Come back when you're ready to deal with reality.
 
clownboy said:
More playing with statistics. They say things like "Ninety percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicare patients". Of course when you look at the reality on the ground, those physicians that don't accept new Medicare patients just don't meet their arcane definition of "office-based physicians". It's an old trick. Good to see you falling for it.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Many physicians are not based in offices, like ER docs, Hospitalists, etc. And they dont take any insurance because they work for institutions that actually all take Medicare.

But thanks for playing.
 
Gill said:
Come back when you're ready to deal with reality.
Click to expand...

You mean the reality that the ACA will destroy our healthcare?

The one we heard in 2009, 2010, 2011,2012,2013, and are hearing right now?

And virtully every single doomsday prediction we heard turned out to be... a little bump, if it existed at all?

I have a feeling that you are just waiting for reality because its RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER! BOO!
 
Isn't part of the reason for federal spending going down is that state costs are going up?
 
sangha said:
Lots of words, but none of them explain how the MS study can be valid when it only surveyed one insurer in 11 states
Click to expand...

Because you don't understand how statistics work?
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean the reality that the ACA will destroy our healthcare?

The one we heard in 2009, 2010, 2011,2012,2013, and are hearing right now?

And virtully every single doomsday prediction we heard turned out to be... a little bump, if it existed at all?

I have a feeling that you are just waiting for reality because its RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER! BOO!
Click to expand...

You mean the reality that much of the funding for ACA has been suspended ???

1. CLASS, long term care provisions budgeted to bring in $86 billion over ten years.........scrapped.

2. Employer / Individual Mandate Penalties, projected to bring in $101 billion over ten years..........delayed.

3. Medicare Advantage, cuts to Medicare Advantage projected to bring in $128 billion over ten years...........scrapped by White House.

This boondoggle will break the country. More provisions designed to partially pay for it are being scrapped on a weekly basis.
 
Threegoofs said:
oh yes. The mandate. That keeps getting held over our heads... because that will do.... something.

Chicken Little, mandate version. Coming to a midterm election to you soon (after the skyrocketing premium meme craps out)!
Click to expand...

Ahh, unable to refute my comment.

Typical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom