California Rolls Out Obamacare

And the premiums don't look too bad!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113289/obamacare-california-no-sticker-shock-here

One report. I think that is wishful thinking. And that is the exchanges. What about the rest of the premiums?

That's right, one report, about the most populous state in the union! You can thank our state Tea Party for our high premiums!

News Buzzard wrote:And the premiums don't look too bad!

Your article is trying to paint Obamacare in California as a success. It's clear the premise is to spite at a partisan core on some "neener neener" level and its not even cleverly disguised. A low information consumer would eat this stuff up.

To clear this up…

Let’s start with the dishonest demographics.

The people added thus far in California have come disproportionately from people under the age of 26, a group substantially healthier than the existing population. This would ABSOLUTELY lower the premiums.

ALSO

Currently in California, Insurers CAN exclude people based on existing conditions.


PCIP Enrollment Suspension

On February 16, 2013, the federally-run Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) suspended acceptance of new enrollment applications until further notice. The suspension also became effective in the state-based PCIPs on March 2. This will help ensure that funds are available through 2013 to continuously cover people currently enrolled in the program.

Yeah, Obamacare under estimated the cost on this big time. The 5 billion appropriated for this program is gone and it only covered 100,000 in 2013. The politicians behind Obamacare figured 5 Billion would cover 750,000 in 2013.

What does this say about the depth and knowledge the politicians have on healthcare costs?

The near future of Obamacare in California

The people being added in 2014 are going to be lower income (tend to be less healthy) and people who previously were uninsurable due to preexisting conditions (also tend to be a tad less healthy).

Granted, it's possible that Optum and all the big nationally but small locally insurers are overestimating the proportion of the latter group in the new insured and the severity of their claims, but if you can precisely split those whose actions are suggesting they predict high claims cost increases and those whose actions are suggesting they predict low claims cost increases by whether they are at risk for regulatory and/or political retaliation aimed at their preexisting business in the state, that smells really funny. Doubly so considering that the Optum study, which can be read rather than inferred and was unbiased as their only incentive was to predict accurately so they would look good to future clients, commissioned by the SOA was predicting substantially higher claims cost increases.


How would this translate nationally?


Who knows, but what we do know is we haven’t gotten the bill yet. In fact it will be about 31 months before we get the real bill.

You might want to actually read the GAO's Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, because it isn't good.

News Buzzard wrote:That's right, one report, about the most populous state in the union! You can thank our state Tea Party for our high premiums!!

The Tea Party is NOT responsible for high premiums. The two factors drive the cost of healthcare are technology and consumer demand.

Technological change has been the largest driver of health care cost growth, and with health insurance coverage and increasing income, is likely the largest source of uncertainty for health care cost projections. As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending.

Politics and healthcare don’t mix well.

Hear, hear!

...Waxman and Pelosi are exempt...

A simple way for Republicans to end Obamacare—write a bill that exempts no one, including congress.

In New Hampshire, the Tea Party is absolutely responsible for our high insurance rates, and politics absolutely mixes with healthcare. When the state cuts payments to hospitals for Medicaid and charity patients, someone else has to pay the bill. That's why New Hampshire has some of the highest health insurance rates in the country. To say that there is no connection between politics and healthcare is false. Obamacare didn't go far enough, we should have a single payer system like Medicare.

Outerlimits wrote:Technological change has been the largest driver of health care cost growth, and with health insurance coverage and increasing income, is likely the largest source of uncertainty for health care cost projections. As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending.

Love that paragraph! The United States has the most expensive healthcare delivery system in the world, twice as expensive as any other country, and there are 36 countries around the world that have better healthcare systems than we do! It's got nothing to do with greed and corruption, now does it?

I can tell you exactly when healthcare started going sky high in NH and that is when the madates started. You had to cover this and you had to cover that. With that, all the companies started leaving the state and we were down to 2 or 3 at least in our part of NH. With less competition comes higher prices. Just wait- Anthem has the monopoly on all the exchanges in this state - in a couple of years with no competition can you imagine what costs will be?

Can’t argue with that logic Buzzard…

Medicare and Medicaid are only paying for part of their covered patient care. Because of this, healthcare providers need to charge insurance companies more to make up the difference. To add to this the government forces insurance companies to handle many of the administrative and overhead costs associated with Medicare and Medicaid.


Somehow you believe it is the “crooks” at the insurance companies and the Tea Party behind rising insurance rates?

Do you think rising rates might have something to do with the Feds CUTTING the reimbursement rates to care givers and calling it Obamacare savings?


Your solution….put everyone on Medicaid

That is just brilliant.

And I suppose you're going to tell me, Outerlimits, that you've never seen a healthcare provider beat up an insurance company for thousands of dollars on an unnecessary test? It never happened, right? And I guess we can completely justify the fact that prescription medication is twice as expensive in this country as most other parts of the world?

And then there's the insurance companies and lawyers; "You're in good hands with Allstate"!

The problem with Obamacare is that it's going to bite into the great gravy train that is health care in this country, and the Republicans always protect corporate interests over the American people!!

Hear, Hear!

Of course I have seen it Buzzard, but it has nothing to do with making a buck and has everything to do with malpractice. I know you have been led to believe doctors perform unnecessary procedures for money; I have never witnessed that and doubt I ever will.

But hey, believe the lawyers. They always have your best interest at heart.

Do you really want to know why a Tylenol cost you $50 at the ER? It might have something to do with 49 people before you that paid nothing.

Let me say it another way

Medicare is “cheaper” than the private market because it unilaterally pays doctors and hospitals about 10% less than it costs to deliver services to Medicare patients; the magnitude of the underpayment is even greater for Medicaid. The result is that doctors and hospitals charge insurers significantly more than it costs to deliver services to private pay insurance patients.

If there was a move to a single payer system “Medicaid for all”, one of two things would happen. Either Medicare costs would have to increase dramatically to cover the costs that providers incur to treat patients or there would be widespread failures of physician practices and hospitals, with the result that there would be tremendous shortages.

Which group do you think would be hit the hardest? Hint: look in the mirror.

Sure you were told ObamaCare would not affect seniors on Medicare but it does, and it already has started. Obama cut the Medicare reimbursement rate, which cut funds to healthcare providers who in turn adjusted the medical care seniors receive by rationing, delayed treatment, substandard care and even outright denial of care.

With no greedy doctors, no greedy hospitals, and no greedy pharmaceutical companies, just who is going to be providing medical care?

Outerlimits wrote:I know you have been led to believe doctors perform unnecessary procedures for money; I have never witnessed that and doubt I ever will.

I have seen doctors perform unnecessary procedures for money, because it has happened to me several times. I'm sure you're not gullible enough to believe that all doctors are "pure and chaste"! If it has happened to me a couple of times, I can only imagine the chicanery that goes on at the national level, including the incidents we read about when doctors are arrested for Medicare fraud.

Outerlimits wrote:Do you really want to know why a Tylenol cost you $50 at the ER? It might have something to do with 49 people before you that paid nothing.

That's the perfect argument for Obamacare. The system doesn't work, so do we stand by and do nothing? Unfortunately, the Republicans don't want to work with the president on it, they only needlessly try to repeal it, repeatedly! That makes a lot of sense!

If you want to make the argument that a politician/public servant is more ethical and trustworthy than a doctor, have at it.

We know a doctor would be held accountable for their actions. Can you say the same for politicians and government workers? There is no paid administrative leave in the private sector.

Our healthcare system needed to be tweaked, not taken over by the government. Obamacare equates to While-E-Coyote strapping on a big ole Acme Rocket onto his back, you simply can’t improve on an idea that is fundamentally flawed and that is why the Republicans want no part of it.

Health Insurance should be insurance. It should never have become a healthcare plan.

Think about this for a moment, how much would your home insurance cost if it paid for maintenance upkeep? How much would your auto insurance cost if it covered all costs associated with ownership?

We would be much better off if insurance only covered catastrophic illness. Check-ups/well visits should never be covered. That would improve healthcare immensely.

Somebody will need to pay for free healthcare and we do not have the ability to deliver unlimited healthcare for everyone. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Hear, hear! That means I agree with OL. Is that OK?

Stick a fork in our healthcare system, it's done. Obamacare is a sincere effort to fix it, and trying to repeal it, repeatedly, is not the way to go!

Harrumph, harrumph.

fshnski wrote:Hear, hear! That means I agree with OL. Is that OK?

I don't ever expect you to agree with me! Your game is gotcha moments, so I don't really care.

Whatever ...

News Buzzard wrote:"Love that paragraph! The United States has the most expensive healthcare delivery system in the world, twice as expensive as any other country, and there are 36 countries around the world that have better healthcare systems than we do! It's got nothing to do with greed and corruption, now does it?"

Perhaps you need a reminder that the US had an opportunity to get above all this ObamaCare Mumbo-Jumbo, decades ago:

"President Nixon proposed a healthcare plan that was blocked by Senator Ted Kennedy, and the senator later apologized for putting political interests ahead of the good of the country. He had not wanted Republicans to get credit for accomplishing something positive.
—theguardian.com

Nice try! Watergate derailed Nixon and Kennedy's bill! Nixon never would have made it with today's Tea Party wingnuts!

News Buzzard wrote:Nice try! Watergate derailed Nixon and Kennedy's bill! Nixon never would have made it with today's Tea Party wingnuts!

Watergate?

The "scandal" in which nobody died? Benghazi was swept under the carpet—until recently.

Outerlimits wrote:The politicians behind Obamacare figured 5 Billion would cover 750,000 in 2013. Politics and healthcare don’t mix well.

Do those figures include the fact that California:

1) requires a certified medical interpreter, and

2) included is a requirement for the physician’s office to provide that certified translator AT THE DOCTOR’s expense.

I don't know about you but I am sick of California's socialism. Our tax money goes to CA. and they keep spending, and spending an spending.

California is running a budget surplus this year, and the government doesn't control all the business out there. They practice Capitalism!