Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep forgetting that healthcare insurance in the U.S. was perfect before the ACA.
The majority of people were and remain insured by their employer's large group healthcare plans. Those plans now conform with ACA legislation. They are now enrolled in "Obamacare".
The worlds oldest universal healthcare system was created in Germany in 1883. It has been continuously amended and reformed, since then. Employers pay about half the premiums for their employees.
Insurance for the poor, the elderly, the unemployed and disabled are paid for by the community.
At the turn of the century, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, campaigned on a promise to create a universal healthcare system for the U.S., modeled after the one in Germany. No president keeps all campaign promises, even when the majority of Congress favors him.
Instead, as the decades ensued, government of the people, allowed lobbies representing hospitals, private insurers, big pharma, medical equipment manufacturers and more to buy seats at the table to determine outcomes that favored their interests.
Quote:
Germany’s cost-control efforts reflect its firm commitment to two goals: to ensure that all its citizens receive the same level of high-quality care and to keep health care spending in line with the health system’s revenues. Achieving those goals is becoming increasingly difficult, however, given mounting cost pressures and Germany’s changing demographics. Population growth is stagnant, and the population is aging rapidly. The health system is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, and unless spending is kept under control, contributions from the dwindling number of active workers could soon be insufficient to cover the cost of care for retirees. (For more, see sidebar “Fast facts about the German health care system.”)
Gee, that sounds juts like, uh, what's that other program facing those same problems in the U.S.?
Quote:
Franz Knieps: There was no single lever we used for cost containment. Instead, we implemented a large number of minor measures to stabilize the health system’s income and expenditures. In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income.
You get it yet?
Quote:
The minor measures were implemented at every level of the health system. For example, each year we establish an overall budget for the system at the national level to serve as a guide for all participants in the system. Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers—know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.
Well that would go over as well as a ton of bricks dropped on you from 8 stories up.
Well, it's a good thing Germany's healthcare system is so great. They would never look to the U.S. for any sort of guidance.
Quote:
Franz Knieps: A few years ago, we introduced disease-management programs, an approach we adopted from the United States. Because that country has so many different health insurance plans, it is often a laboratory for new ideas.
Quote:
The Quarterly: At this stage, can you precisely quantify the impact of the changes you have discussed, such as drug reference pricing, integrated care, and data aggregation? Franz Knieps: No, not yet. At present, it’s not clear whether we have produced real cost reductions or whether we have simply slowed the rise in spending.
~An interview with Franz Knieps: A senior executive in the German Ministry of Health describes approaches the country is using to control health care costs~
McKinsey & Company
You all realize that most of the big insurance companies are public and report totol enrollment in public filings. Analysts are watching the numbers closely.
Heres a good website that tracks enrollments. Enrollments went over 5 million today.
You need to put it in perspective plus your numbers are wrong. ACA spending is estimated at $1.36 trillion from 2014-2023. Medicare spending will be $7.93 trillion. Medicare will cost almost 6 times as much while covering twice as many people. You could say Medicare is costing 8 trillion dollars while only covering 52 million...government take over of health care, millions still uninsured, etc.
Quote:
The financial outlook for Medicare is also uncertain because some provisions of current law that are designed to reduce expenditures may be difficult to sustain. The clearest example of this issue is the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for physician fee schedule payment levels. The projections in this report assume that, as required by current law, CMS will implement a reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services of almost 25 percent at the start of 2014. However, it is a virtual certainty that lawmakers, cognizant of the disruptive consequences of such a sudden, sharp reduction in payments, will override this reduction as they have every year since 2003.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, introduced even larger policy changes and projection uncertainty. This legislation, referred to collectively as the “Affordable Care Act” or ACA, contains roughly 165 provisions affecting the Medicare program by reducing costs, increasing revenues, improving benefits, combating fraud and abuse, and initiating a major program of research and development to identify alternative provider payment mechanisms, health care delivery systems, and other changes intended to improve the quality of health care and reduce costs. The Board assumes that the various cost-reduction measures—the most important of which are the reductions in the annual payment rate updates for most categories of Medicare providers by the growth in economy-wide multifactor productivity—will occur as the Affordable Care Act requires. The Trustees believe that this outcome is achievable if health care providers are able to realize productivity improvements at a faster rate than experienced historically. However, if the health sector cannot transition to more efficient models of care delivery and achieve productivity increases commensurate with economy-wide productivity, and if the provider reimbursement rates paid by commercial insurers continue to follow the same negotiated process used to date, then the availability and quality of health care received by Medicare beneficiaries would, under current law, fall over time relative to that received by those with private health insurance.
Given these uncertainties, future Medicare costs could be substantially higher than shown in the Trustees’ current-law projection.
The actual numbers covered thanks to the ACA is 11.5 million to 14.7 million. You need to add all the numbers up, adult children allowed to stay on their parents plan, Medicaid, and actual ACA enrollments. The 4.2 million number is also old that was two weeks ago That number is now closer to 5 million. More people have insurance now than had insurance last year.
Boehner also just got four Pinocchio's for his recent claim Obamacare has resulted in a net loss of people with insurance
"Around one in five people who picked health insurance policies on the state and federal exchanges last year haven't paid their first month's premiums, according to insurers polled by CNNMoney."
Overhaul? Your kidding right? We barely changed it. The ACA is better, but it doesn't do enough to solve our health care system. It was built upon the old screwed up system of allowing health insurance companies of making decisions instead of doctors. It still keeps the insurance companies as for profit, and by law, that means they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. How do they do that? By charging more for less service. Increasing copays and deductibles for larger premiums.
As well, the US gov. is still barred from negotiating drug prices on behalf of its residents.
Guess who helped write the ACA?
America's Health Insurance Plan's (they lobbied against the public option)
American Hospital Association (hospital pricing, need i say more)
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (lobbied against drug negotiation for pricing)
Care to take a guess what they all have in common? Hint: It starts is an L and rhymes with hobby
So ya, we completely overhauled our system, didnt we folks
You honestly think a single-payer would be less corrupt?
The crux of the biscuit: The United States would completely change its entire health care system to make sure those 46 million got insured.
Good points.
It was actually 50 Million and if you ask Left-Winger where these 50 Million are, the will run away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
"adult children" lol oxymoron of the day.
Yes, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
- Eliminates lifetime limits on essential medical expenses;
Which increases the costs of medical care, plus increases the cost of your fee-for-service health plan coverage which dishonestly insist upon calling "health insurance."
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
Exactly. Obama wouldn't even touch reducing out of control costs, like tort reform ....
Tort reform is a non-issue.
Regulations governing the disposal of bio-hazards increase costs faster than tort actions, and the cost of bio-hazard disposal isn't even 1/2 of 1% of your healthcare costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
The worlds oldest universal healthcare system was created in Germany in 1883.
That would be fascinating if it were even remotely relevant.
What is relevant are the words of the former German Health Minister:
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.-- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs An interview with Franz Knieps
ACA supporters running for cover in 3...2....1....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
4.2M is inaccurate.
Only 27% of those had no insurance previously. O spent trillions to cover 1.1M people. That's about 1/3 of 1% of the US populatoin.
O is an idiot.
That's right.
Obama ruined your economy for that....
-A neighborhood boy died of cancer a few years ago after he reached his lifetime limit and the insurance company cut him off - his parents had thought they had a great plan through their employer. Continued treatment could have given him more months or years of life.
The Laws of Economics apply to everyone and everything.
How much money did you give to the family?
You didn't lift a finger, but you'll condemn others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
The ACA is better, but it doesn't do enough to solve our health care system.
Obamacare is will, and is damaging your economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
It was built upon the old screwed up system of allowing health insurance companies of making decisions instead of doctors.
That is a patently false statement, and you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support your false statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
It still keeps the insurance companies as for profit, and by law, that means they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. How do they do that? By charging more for less service. Increasing copays and deductibles for larger premiums.
You don't even understand how insurance works.
And even that wouldn't be so bad, except you don't even recognize that you have a monopolistic Soviet-style Command Economic hospital system that prices fixes and price gouges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
Better to rewrite than repeal, because most Americans DONT WANT TO REPEAL
And so you link to the mouth-piece for the American Hospital Association.
That's brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
The ACA is barley a liberal plan as I have describes in my post earlier.
It is a Liberal plan.
When you can provide proof --- and proof is not linking to websites that merely parrot what you're parroting to parrot of their parroting nonsense, then maybe people might actually believe you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
Neither do Republican contributors.
Read this very informative ruling by your very own US Supreme Court on the ACA:
2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.
(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___.
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.
Source: National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al. US Supreme Court 2012
Which part of that do you not understand?
Not impressed...
You need to put it in perspective plus your numbers are wrong. ACA spending is estimated at $1.36 trillion from 2014-2023. Medicare spending will be $7.93 trillion. Medicare will cost almost 6 times as much while covering twice as many people. You could say Medicare is costing 8 trillion dollars while only covering 52 million...government take over of health care, millions still uninsured, etc.
No the numbers are correct:
With the law as stated - there will be 30 million "non-elderly uninsured" people in this country 10 years from now. Per the non-partisan CBO, as I stated.
Per the Democrat controlled Senate Budget Committee, when you factor in implementation, closing medicare gaps the ACA will cost 2.6 Trillion over the next 10 years.
Don't forget, we may need to bailout some insurance companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep forgetting that healthcare insurance in the U.S. was perfect before the ACA. 
