AP: says" health care will cover more, cost more"
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_ ... _law_costs
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.
The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.
Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.
"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.
The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.
Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
Oh wow look another sober assesment... :roll:
Maybe the ones who wrote and supported it were trashed at the time...
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.
The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.
Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.
"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.
The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.
Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
Oh wow look another sober assesment... :roll:
Maybe the ones who wrote and supported it were trashed at the time...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
+1
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
But more than that...
I'm just fine with paying a bit more if it means that my insurance company can't cut off my coverage JUST when I need it.
This raises a good question that I wish everyone would answer:
Are you fine with paying a bit more if it means fewer children will suffer and/or die? What about if just fewer people in general will suffer and/or die?
I guess it all depends on what you think is more important, right?
Hail, Hail!!!
See I work out at the downtown Gold's Gym in Los Angeles and depending on which road I take, I have to drive past the Staples Center.
And this weekend they have one of their "free clinics" and literally thousands of people line up for hours to see a doctor for free. As if we're in Somalia. Or Ethiopia.
We live in a country that claims it's the "#1" country in the world and we rely on doctors without borders in the largest city in the country so the poor can get 10 minutes with a doctor.
I'll pay a little extra in taxes, thanks. Maybe if you want lower taxes again you can ask the president to end the war?
How can anyone chant, "U!S!A!"... and not give a shit about American people? I don't get it.
Hail, Hail!!!
soooo who is doing that ???
Correct me if Im wrong,but I think I recall you saying that you have what is considerd one of those cadillac Ins plans tha are going to be taxed at 40% (tax on the value of plans above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families)when 2018 rolls around. If so how do you feel about that.
so this seems to be the general consensus.." I don't mind paying a bit more " and im sure most Americans would agree,but just how much is to much ?
Hey look.
I don't have a problem with MOST of what this bill is attempting to achieve.
My largest concern comes with any attempt to MANDATE COVERAGE.
In other words,
I'm a healthy 30yr old male
who hasn't been to the doctor in almost a decade.
I RARELY EVER get the flu or anything more than a 1 day bug.
I don't have coverage, can't really afford it, and more importantly
DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT.
If this plan ever ends up becoming a:
You Pay For Coverage or You Pay A Tax To NOT Be Covered
then THAT is where i have a MAJOR ISSUE with it,
because it is at that point where it starts to go against my constitutionally protected rights.
You can tax a service, you can tax an activity,
but how the fuck can you tax a NON-Activity?
I hear that South Dakota is short on residents,
perhaps we should TAX WOMEN WHO AREN'T HAVING CHILDREN so we can use the proceeds to fund fertility drug prescriptions in that state? See how silly that sounds? And absolutely offensive to the "subject" being taxed it seems?
Again,
i'm not even sure that 2% tax bit made it in the bill,
but i find it abhorrent if it did.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Any reasonable tackling of health issues means regarding it as insurance. And the ones not needing the insurance pay-out are always the ones paying out the ones that do. That's how all insurance works. We can bitch and fight about how the costs are to be structured, but health never will be something you pay the full price for the moment you need it. Few would afford it that way.
Just think the "but I dont need it right now" argument is a very poor one in this respect.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
For example, would we ever let groceries get so high that only a small percentage could afford them and we'd all need grocery insurance to purchase it? I don't think we would, yet food is probably as important as health care. What would we do to keep it from getting so high? Why haven't we done those same things with health care?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you have not been to the doctor on almost a decade, how do you know if you are healthy?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i think you bring up an excellent point here ...
the answer is that this is the foundation of the capitalist society America so loves ... where profits are the primary goal ...
Actually, I think I bring up the exact opposite point. That capitalism is not at play at all in health care anymore. That we've allowed the remote control of insurance to allow all the players in health care - doctors, medical professionals, pharmaceuticals, etc. - to screw us over.
With my example of groceries, the answer is the market doesn't allow it because we are shopping for food on our own. We don't stand for the shenanigans the health care industry is pulling on us.
Do you think grocery prices would be what they are now if we had our employers pay and deduct money from our checks automatically to cut checks for the food we buy at stores where the prices aren't even on the shelves?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
A few differences between groceries & healthcare are:
1. The education & intelligence levels required to do the job.
2. The cost of education and - yes, I'll say it 'cuz it's true - malpractice for the docs.
3. The government subsidies of the food industry.
4. Groceries are provided to us in large part by undocumented immigrants who get paid shit wages.
5. In medicine you are often purchasing both goods and services, whereas with food you are only purchasing goods.
6. Medicine requires costly research and technology; food does not.
Those are just the first ones I thought of.
Give me a break.
Let me put it this way,
if i had been forced by the government to pay for healthcare i REASONABLY DID NOT NEED for the past ten years, I WOULD BE FUCKING LIVID RIGHT NOW!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Excellent point!
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
how the fuck is that an excellent point.
it has ZERO bearing on the debate at hand.
My health IS MY OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Is the government going to start mandating:
a. that i have life insurance?
b. that i have fire AND flood insurance?
c. that i have adequate money set aside to cover burial costs?
d. that my comprehensive auto policy is large enough?
I mean SERIOUSLY folks.
Do you need the fucking government to tell you how to wipe your own goddamn ass
so that you don't inconvenience your neighbor with your dingleberries?
I understand health is a touchy subject for some people,
but truly ...
What i hear around here are 2 things primarily
a. the system is unfairly burdensome on those who can't afford the high price
b. those who aren't insured are an unfair burden on those who are and should therefore be REQUIRED to have it.
If you feel that way, why don't you work on a solution that DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.
You can NOT have it both ways.
If you feel like your "RIGHTS" (and believe me when i tell you, this FAR left\liberal ASSumption that healthcare is a "right" is nearly laughable, no matter how cruel you think the statement) are being violated by not being adequately provided for, why don't you work on a solution that doesn't affect the LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others?
To "solve" YOUR problem any other way (by violating MY rights or the rights of millions of your fellow americans) is pure hypocritical bullshit.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
actually ... hahaha
you corroborate my point about the form of capitalism that exists in america ... because the "rules" are formed to allow for corporations/industries to do these kinds of things ... so, it isn't really a free market type of situation ... which is one of the problems and the other of course is whether or not services such as health care and education should be open to these conditions to begin with ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
well ... it is and it isn't ... if you contract a virus because of your poor health and spread it to others - you are in fact contributing to health care costs unrelated to you ... we are interconnected that way ...
i think the point kel is trying to make is just because you have chosen to not go to the doctor and feel fine today - you may not in fact be healthy ... your blood sugars could be high - something that your body can accomodate now but will be harder to when you get older which could lead to diabetes ... this is just one example and you may indeed be as healthy as it comes ... but simply stating you've only gotten sick a day here or there and never been to the doctor doesn't necessarily mean you are a healthy individual .. it is why they recommend people get physicals once a year ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
YOU are the one who brought up your own health as if it has bearing on the debate at hand. To now say it shouldn't be discussed and has zero bearing on the debate is "pure hypocritical bullshit".
I think it's an excellent point because you can't really know for sure that you are healthy if you haven't been to any doctor in a decade. How do you know you don't have an STD, for instance? Or cancer? (In reality, even those of us who see our doctors regularly don't all know for sure that we are perfectly healthy. But we have a better sense of it than those who haven't been.)
Geez Louise! This gets back to the first point... how do you know you don't have an anger management problem if you haven't been to a mental health professional in a decade? I think maybe a screening is in order...
Excellent point.
:thumbup:
This is what i was screaming loudly last year.
You can't fault "free market capitalism" when that is NOT the predominant force at play here.
The problem is you are dealing with a largely ignorant public that, unaware of the real issues, is clamoring for contrived solutions, fed them by the same massive corporate-lobbyist-government machine.
Again, right to the crux of the issue.
But to remind the masses, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE FOR, PLEASE DO IT LEGALLY BY EXPANDING IT'S EXPRESSED POWERS VIA A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. To do it via legislation or through the courts is simply to further spit in the face of our founding document! THIS IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, SO IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, THEN CHANGE IT. DON'T SET A REALLY BAD PRECEDENT FOR THE USURPATION OF POWERS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE CRYING OVER THE COST OF YOUR HEALTHCARE BILL!
If people want socialized medicine in this country WITHOUT a constitutional ammenment, THEN YOU NEED TO LOOK TO THE STATE LEVEL FOR YOUR SOCIALISM.
I'm not necessarily against it. In fact you would probably have my blessing (along with that of Adam Smith, who certainly accepted and even endorsed the efficiency of a municipal government in the administration of large infrastructure utilities\services, like gas, electricity, and possibly medicine).
BUT FOR GODSAKE QUIT SUBVERTING YOUR OWN GODDAMN FOUNDING DOCUMENT WHICH GRANTS YOU THE VERY LIBERTY TO BE SO ASININE IN YOUR "LOGIC"!
If I opened it now would you not understand?