• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats eating a lot of crow.

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last edited:
It's a vast right wing conspiracy. Where's Greenbeard? He can explain it all. He did a magnificent job before. And maybe get Vern in here too. We need a bubble machine going in the background, like Lawrence Welk - it's the ambience such a topic requires.
 
As a person who works in the industry I can safely say that the ACA was the worst of both private and public insurance. But as a person who works in the industry I can also say that at least ACA was an ATTEMPT to fix a decades long problem. The Dems implemented a poorly thought out plan while the Republicans ignored the problem and then sat in the back of the class throwing spitballs. The ACA is bad and the GOP alternatives were as bad. You don't get credit for ignoring a problem and then whining about the efforts at a solution. The GOP has had 8 years to come up with "replace" AND there's still nothing but crickets. This is why despite the ACA being awful the GOP has no credibility when it comes to attacking the ACA.
 
As a person who works in the industry I can safely say that the ACA was the worst of both private and public insurance. But as a person who works in the industry I can also say that at least ACA was an ATTEMPT to fix a decades long problem. The Dems implemented a poorly thought out plan while the Republicans ignored the problem and then sat in the back of the class throwing spitballs. The ACA is bad and the GOP alternatives were as bad. You don't get credit for ignoring a problem and then whining about the efforts at a solution. The GOP has had 8 years to come up with "replace" AND there's still nothing but crickets. This is why despite the ACA being awful the GOP has no credibility when it comes to attacking the ACA.

I don't disagree the Republicans sat on their hands and did nothing once the government had thoroughly screwed up healthcare. I strongly disagree that the ACA was an honest attempt to fix the problem. The engineers of it have freely admitted now that they knew it would cause problems and would fix little or nothing, but their motives for pushing it were self serving to many. And here is Jonathan Gruber admitting we the people were stupid to beleive what they told us about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
 
As a person who works in the industry I can safely say that the ACA was the worst of both private and public insurance. But as a person who works in the industry I can also say that at least ACA was an ATTEMPT to fix a decades long problem. The Dems implemented a poorly thought out plan while the Republicans ignored the problem and then sat in the back of the class throwing spitballs. The ACA is bad and the GOP alternatives were as bad. You don't get credit for ignoring a problem and then whining about the efforts at a solution. The GOP has had 8 years to come up with "replace" AND there's still nothing but crickets. This is why despite the ACA being awful the GOP has no credibility when it comes to attacking the ACA.

OK, let's first carefully define "the problem". Many see the problem as medical care costs more than most folks can pay for at the time that they need it. Those with no "excess" income can neither save nor afford any insurance premiums - neither insurance "reform" nor HSA accounts will help to solve that problem. The workable answers seem to be 1) mandate "free" care from providers (expand EMTLA?) and let care providers raise their prices for those that can (do?) pay (treat it much like shoplifting), 2) have the government pay (at least part of) that "deadbeat" customer cost or have the government be the "single payer" (UHC?) for everyone and tax accordingly.
 
Politifact once again proves they're nothing but biased ****.

Hey guys, I'm going to mandate insurance companies cover all these things, but it will won't raise rates because poor people will buy insurance too. :lamo
 
Where IS Greenbeard, anywho? I figured he'd be in here trying to explain how growth rates had actually fallen, doing the old "take credit for Medicare part D" schtick, again.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
At the end of the day this goes down as "THE DC ELITE FAILED. YET AGAIN".
 
Ive already seen the response. It wasnt Obamas fault. The dems didnt pass what he was running on.

Turns out...some folk like crow.
 
Where IS Greenbeard, anywho? I figured
he'd be in here trying to explain how growth rates had actually fallen, doing the old "take credit for Medicare part D" schtick, again.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Or:

All the ACA needs is a few tweaks here and there, but the GOP has stymied any attempt to do so. It's their fault. When some needed changes were proposed, McConnell was riding a fat-tired girl's bike with a little bell and a basket around Kentucky.

put on a happy face lyrics - Google Search
 
It's a vast right wing conspiracy. Where's Greenbeard? He can explain it all.
Where IS Greenbeard, anywho?

He's here! The Indians are having their deepest playoff run in two decades, but no game tonight so hello again. What do you need explained?

I figured he'd be in here trying to explain how growth rates had actually fallen, doing the old "take credit for Medicare part D" schtick, again.

Health spending growth rates have fallen (particularly in Medicare) significantly. What does that have to do with exchange premiums?
 
He's here! The Indians are having their deepest playoff run in two decades, but no game tonight so hello again. What do you need explained?



Health spending growth rates have fallen (particularly in Medicare) significantly. What does that have to do with exchange premiums?
:) previously you have attempted to use it as evidence of Obamacare's success, and so I've had to point out that it predates that unfortunate program.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
:) previously you have attempted to use it as evidence of Obamacare's success, and so I've had to point out that it predates that unfortunate program.

It's not deniable that a significant chunk of the ACA is aimed at delivery system reform--changing the volume-driven incentive for ever-greater spending that have guided clinical practice for a half century or more. That's a big deal.

If you want to argue it's a happy coincidence that health care cost, price, and spending growth hit the lowest values on record while health care providers were undergoing that transition, that's fine. (Regardless of the cause, that's part of the reason the costs of the ACA have fallen precipitously and come in well below what was "sold" back in 2010.) I'm not sure how that's an argument against re-orienting the health care system around quality and efficiency instead of around service/revenue volume.
 
:) previously you have attempted to use it as evidence of Obamacare's success, and so I've had to point out that it predates that unfortunate program.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

er uh CP, you and yours have " pointed " out many things over the years I've been here. I wouldn't bring that up if your trying to make a point. anyhoo CP, can you do me a favor, can you start your obedient posts about Obamacare with "sure, 20 million more people are covered, its increased the quality of care and lowered the deficit but.........". I think it would help me know you at least acknowledge the facts.
 
Health spending growth rates have fallen (particularly in Medicare) significantly

Gosh. Were there any major structural changes to Medicare at the beginning of this trend (back in oh, say, 2003-2004 time frame) that might help explain this?

It's not deniable that a significant chunk of the ACA is aimed at delivery system reform--changing the volume-driven incentive for ever-greater spending that have guided clinical practice for a half century or more. That's a big deal.

It's not deniable that the system is producing an older, sicker, insurance populace than the planners expected because they were wrong, and conservatives were correct about how people would respond to incentive structures involving guaranteed issue and community rating. It's equally undeniable that pie-in-the-sky predictions and confident "fact checks" denying this or even accusing conservatives of lying over it were incorrect.

If you want to argue it's a happy coincidence that health care cost, price, and spending growth hit the lowest values on record while health care providers were undergoing that transition, that's fine. (Regardless of the cause, that's part of the reason the costs of the ACA have fallen precipitously and come in well below what was "sold" back in 2010.) I'm not sure how that's an argument against re-orienting the health care system around quality and efficiency instead of around service/revenue volume.
:lol: you are confusing your intent with your execution :)
 
Vern said:
CP, you and yours have " pointed " out many things over the years I've been here.
Well I couldn’t speak to “mine”, but I would say that generally both sides overreached on their predictions, but Conservatives were correct about the direction – fewer people working, higher premiums, etc.

I wouldn't bring that up if your trying to make a point. anyhoo CP, can you do me a favor, can you start your obedient posts about Obamacare with
 I don’t have any “obedient” posts about Obamacare. I simply have “my” posts about Obamacare.

Are you projecting, or something?

"sure, 20 million more people are covered, its increased the quality of care and lowered the deficit but.........".
To separate the effects of the ACA’s coverage provisions from those broader estimates, CBO and JCT compared their current projections with estimates of what would have occurred if the ACA had never been enacted. In 2016, those provisions are estimated to reduce the number of uninsured people by 22 million and to result in a net cost to the federal government of $110 billion. For the 2017–2026 period, the projected net cost of those provisions is $1.4 trillion. .

It’s fun to play with numbers.  For example, if you don’t score the costs of the Medicaid Expansion under Obamacare, you can reduce the cost. Dittoes if you count in the “Doc Fix” that everyone knows gets stripped out every year as “producing savings”.

Jan 15 2016: Congressional Budget Office drops their estimate of how many people will go onto the exchanges from 21 million people to 13 million. The “savings” that are occurring in the cost of the subsidies are produced by the fact that premiums are spiraling higher, and so fewer people are signing up for even the subsidized plans, and those who do sign up are often taking advantage of Guaranteed Issue to get some expensive procedures done, and then dropping off the program. Resulting in the dramatic reduction in choice as insurers lose hundreds of millions of dollars and pull out of the markets.



If the plan was “Price everyone out of the individual market except for those whom we push onto Medicaid” – a program that has provides no consistently significant health benefit – then I would agree, it is thus far successful. And despite all the damage, all the expense, etc., ~30 million people remain uninsured. Congrats. :)

I think it would help me know you at least acknowledge the facts.
Let’s talk about facts. Those who pushed Obamacare claimed that premiums would be lower and choice would be broader as a result: Yes, or No?
 
Gosh. Were there any major structural changes to Medicare at the beginning of this trend (back in oh, say, 2003-2004 time frame) that might help explain this?

Are you suggesting the introduction of a new unfunded health benefit pushed spending growth down? If so, a thousand liberal wet dreams just came true.

It's not deniable that the system is producing an older, sicker, insurance populace than the planners expected because they were wrong

The premiums projected by the CBO 6-7 years ago are what payers in the exchanges are trying to converge with now, having undershot them for a few years. "The planners" were actually more accurate in projecting the PMPM needed to fund the expenses of exchange enrollees than the insurers themselves.

In other words, if insurers had used the prices the CBO assumed they would, they would've performed better and more accurately matched the risk profile of their enrollees. That the government beancounters were better at setting premiums than the actuaries at the insurance companies has been one of the biggest surprises of the last two years or so.
 
URL="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51385-HealthInsuranceBaseline_OneCol.pdf"] To separate the effects of the ACA’s coverage provisions from those broader estimates, CBO and JCT compared their current projections with estimates of what would have occurred if the ACA had never been enacted. In 2016, those provisions are estimated to reduce the number of uninsured people by 22 million and to result in a net cost to the federal government of $110 billion. For the 2017–2026 period, the projected net cost of those provisions is $1.4 trillion. .[/URL]

From the very next full paragraph:

The estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, which do not generate all of the law’s budgetary effects.17 Many other provisions—such as various tax provisions that increase revenues and reductions in Medicare payments to hospitals, to other providers of care, and to private insurance plans delivering Medicare’s benefits—are, on net, expected to reduce budget deficits

The point of including the pay-fors was to offset the new spending. That's where the deficit reduction comes from.

For example, if you don’t score the costs of the Medicaid Expansion under Obamacare, you can reduce the cost.

The costs of Medicaid expansion were scored. At the time, it was projected that in FY16 the Medicaid expansion and CHIP extension would add $81 billion to the pre-ACA Medicaid baseline spending of $352 billion of Medicaid/CHIP spending. In other words, the CBO told us back then that we'd be spending $433 billion on Medicaid/CHIP last fiscal year after incorporating the Medicaid expansion.

Actual spending on Medicaid in FY16 according to the latest CBO Monthly Budget Review was $368 billion. Tacking on the federal share of CHIP will bump that up maybe $10-12 billion.

Dittoes if you count in the “Doc Fix” that everyone knows gets stripped out every year as “producing savings”.

The SGR was repealed in MACRA. There are no doc fixes anymore.
 
Let’s talk about facts. Those who pushed Obamacare claimed that premiums would be lower and choice would be broader as a result: Yes, or No?

but CP, premiums are lower and choices are broader for the vast majority of people. I think you're confusing (and celebrating) premium increases with costs being higher than they would be have been. If I was going to question the "integrity" of a side, I would question the side that supported mandates for 20 years and then suddenly didn't and repeatedly spewed the following

it only reduces the deficit because its 10 years of revenue and 6 years of benefits
death panels
costs increased wildly
hundreds of thousands of doctors will retire
its a govt takeover of healthcare
50 to 100 million will lose insurance
no one will sign up
no one will pay
it will cost jobs

And I didn't ask for your obedient flailing about Obamacare, I asked you to acknowledge the facts that Obamacare has give 20 million people healthcare and it increased the quality of healthcare and lowered the deficit. I could detect you were "flailing" at the lowering the deficit part but you didn't acknowledge that it reduced the deficit. And you avoided the other points.
 
Back
Top Bottom