dont get sick

West Mifflin, PA

#50535 Jul 1, 2013
Health-insurance premiums have been rising—and consumers will experience another series of price shocks later this year when some see their premiums skyrocket thanks to the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.

The reason: The congressional Democrats who crafted the legislation ignored virtually every actuarial principle governing rational insurance pricing. Premiums will soon reflect that disregard—indeed, premiums are already reflecting it.

Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue),(2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.

Guaranteed issue incentivizes people to forgo buying a policy until they get sick and need coverage (and then drop the policy after they get well). While ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty—or is it a tax?—to discourage people from gaming the system, it is too low to be a real disincentive. The result will be insurance pools that are smaller and sicker, and therefore more expensive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
Yul Brenner

West Mifflin, PA

#50537 Jul 1, 2013
Published: June 15, 2013
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Save
E-mail
Share
Print
Reprints
LAST month, for the 37th time, the House of Representatives voted to repeal Obamacare, with many Republicans saying that its call for greater government involvement in the health care system spells doom. Yet most other industrial countries have health care systems with far more government involvement than we are ever likely to see under Obamacare. What does their experience tell us about Republican fears?

While in Sweden this month as a visiting scholar, I’ve asked several Swedish health economists to share their thoughts about that question. They have spent their lives under a system in which most health care providers work directly for the government. Like economists in most other countries, they tend to be skeptical of large bureaucracies. So if extensive government involvement in health care is indeed a recipe for doom, they should have clear evidence of that by now.

Yet none of them voiced the kinds of complaints about recalcitrant bureaucrats and runaway health costs that invariably surface in similar conversations with American colleagues. Little wonder. The Swedish system performs superbly, and my Swedish colleagues cited evidence of that fact with obvious pride.

The United States spends more than $8,000 a person per year on health care, well more than twice what Sweden spends. Yet health outcomes are far better in Sweden along virtually every dimension. Its infant mortality rate, for example, was recently less than half that of the United States. And males aged 15 to 60 are almost twice as likely to die in any given year in the United States than in Sweden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/wh...
Yul Brenner

West Mifflin, PA

#50538 Jul 1, 2013
With many Americans and businesses concerned about the impact of Obamacare, a new study from the country's top group of financial risk analysts is providing fodder for those fears.

Underlying claims costs -- which form the basis for insurers' health care coverage premiums -- will jump by one-third across the U.S. after the Affordable Care Act goes into effect next year, according to the Society of Actuaries.

But that increase won't be felt evenly across the country because the study forecasts that some states will feel more pain than others. Among the hardest-hit will be Ohio, where claims costs will jump by almost 81%, and California, with a 62% increase.

Other states projected to see big increases in claims costs are Wisconsin, with an 80% jump; Indiana at 68%; Maryland, with a 67% bump; and Idaho at 62%.

What does that mean for individuals? If you're already covered by your employer's plan, not much. But if you're uninsured or buy health insurance directly, the study indicates costs could rise for some people, according to The Associated Press.
Yul Brenner

West Mifflin, PA

#50539 Jul 1, 2013
Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It's all about control. When your healthcare costs go up, you lose more of your income. When companies start laying off or reducing workhours, you will either lose more of your income or all of it. The less money you have, the fewer goods and services you will be able to afford. The fewer goods/services required = more people losing wages and jobs.

Obama is bankrupting this country. Obama is depleting your libereies and freedoms.

Poor people, and those dependent on the goverenment have very little freedom/liberty to do as they please.

Do you see it now people??

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#50541 Jul 1, 2013
Yul Brenner wrote:
Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It's all about control. When your healthcare costs go up, you lose more of your income. When companies start laying off or reducing workhours, you will either lose more of your income or all of it. The less money you have, the fewer goods and services you will be able to afford. The fewer goods/services required = more people losing wages and jobs.
Obama is bankrupting this country. Obama is depleting your libereies and freedoms.
Poor people, and those dependent on the goverenment have very little freedom/liberty to do as they please.
Do you see it now people??
If this is true, what would be the motivation to do that? You say it's not about healthcare, it's about control, right? I think this is the part people don't consider - what would Obama's motivation be to intentionally cause people to lose wages and jobs?

I'm not even speaking as some sort of Obamacare defender. I'm just wondering why, if it's this simple, any politician would do that?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50543 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Obama administration lost two-thirds of cases during Supreme Court term
President Obama celebrated the Supreme Court’s decisions Wednesday on gay marriage, but overall it has been a rocky term before the court for his administration, winning just more than a third of the cases in which it was involved.
Lawyers said the government traditionally averages about a 70 percent winning percentage before the high court. Its advantages are so great that the Justice Department’s chief Supreme Court attorney, the solicitor general, is dubbed the “10th Justice.”
But during the 2012-13 term, which began in October and ended Wednesday, the court rejected Mr. Obama’s arguments on property rights, affirmative action, voting rights and other issues.
“Despite some notable victories, the Obama administration has had an unusually poor batting average at the high court,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA.“Like last year, the Obama administration lost more cases than it won.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/...
Let me get this straight - you believe that an activist, politicized conservative SCOTUS somehow reflects negatively on President Obama?

That's not even rational. Tell me you aren't that brainwashed.

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50544 Jul 1, 2013
Yul Brenner wrote:
Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It's all about control. When your healthcare costs go up, you lose more of your income. When companies start laying off or reducing workhours, you will either lose more of your income or all of it. The less money you have, the fewer goods and services you will be able to afford. The fewer goods/services required = more people losing wages and jobs.
Obama is bankrupting this country. Obama is depleting your libereies and freedoms.
Poor people, and those dependent on the goverenment have very little freedom/liberty to do as they please.
Do you see it now people??
By definition, government regulation is control.

So why did the government decided to regulate healthcare? Because tens of millions of Americans had no reasonable access to healthcare and almost 50,000 Americans die every year because of it. And we are #1 in the world for healthcare spending while ranking #37 in the world for outcomes.

It was reasonable and responsible to implement more regulation of an industry that produces those kind of results.

Most experts acknowledge that a single-payer, government plan is the best solution, but Obamacare was a massive compromise on the part of Democrats to include Republican ideas and keep a system that is market-based.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50545 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Hospitals Threaten Obamacare Savings by Exiting Program
Almost a third of 32 hospitals and health systems involved in an experiment aimed at changing the way medical providers are paid may exit the program, a potential threat to the Affordable Care Act’s ambitious cost-saving goals.
Medicare’s “Pioneer” program is designed to save money by more efficiently managing care for patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes and dementia. The providers agreed to a three-year plan to forgo traditional fee-for-service payments, where hospitals charge for every procedure, and instead get a fixed monthly stipend for individual patients.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-29/hosp...
Dead link. No way to verify this post.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50547 Jul 1, 2013
Yul Brenner wrote:
With many Americans and businesses concerned about the impact of Obamacare, a new study from the country's top group of financial risk analysts is providing fodder for those fears.
Underlying claims costs -- which form the basis for insurers' health care coverage premiums -- will jump by one-third across the U.S. after the Affordable Care Act goes into effect next year, according to the Society of Actuaries.
But that increase won't be felt evenly across the country because the study forecasts that some states will feel more pain than others. Among the hardest-hit will be Ohio, where claims costs will jump by almost 81%, and California, with a 62% increase.
Other states projected to see big increases in claims costs are Wisconsin, with an 80% jump; Indiana at 68%; Maryland, with a 67% bump; and Idaho at 62%.
What does that mean for individuals? If you're already covered by your employer's plan, not much. But if you're uninsured or buy health insurance directly, the study indicates costs could rise for some people, according to The Associated Press.
Hard to believe that expanding coverage to include the 50 million with no access to healthcare will cost more.

LOL! Why is anyone surprised by this? Of course there will be more claims - more people will have access to healthcare.

Too bad these "analysts" aren't reporting on the savings within Obamacare that will result in a $125 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50548 Jul 1, 2013
dont get sick wrote:
Health-insurance premiums have been rising—and consumers will experience another series of price shocks later this year when some see their premiums skyrocket thanks to the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.
The reason: The congressional Democrats who crafted the legislation ignored virtually every actuarial principle governing rational insurance pricing. Premiums will soon reflect that disregard—indeed, premiums are already reflecting it.
Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue),(2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.
Guaranteed issue incentivizes people to forgo buying a policy until they get sick and need coverage (and then drop the policy after they get well). While ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty—or is it a tax?—to discourage people from gaming the system, it is too low to be a real disincentive. The result will be insurance pools that are smaller and sicker, and therefore more expensive.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
This op-ed piece, by conservative partisans, is based on deeply flawed analysis by the Society of Actuaries that has already been debunked. Only rightwing partisans continue to believe this nonsense.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50549 Jul 1, 2013
Analysis: Subsidies will offset ObamaCare 'rate shock'

Most of the young, healthy people whose premiums will rise under President Obama's healthcare law will be eligible for tax credits to help with the added costs, according to a new analysis.

The analysis, released Thursday by the consulting firm Avalere Health, found that two-thirds of young, uninsured adults will be eligible for subsidies under the healthcare law.

[...]

In California, which recently released the preliminary rates for plans in its insurance exchange, young people would see a lower-than-expected increase in the cost of the cheapest plan.

Those who receive subsidies from the federal government would often pay even less than they're paying now, and some poor young people might not have to pay a premium at all, California officials said.

Nationwide, two-thirds of uninsured people younger than 30 will be eligible for subsidies, Avalere said. Overall, 46 percent of all uninsured people will likely qualify for some level of subsidy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-r...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50550 Jul 1, 2013
Obamacare to make rates soar, state says in analysis attacked as deeply flawed

To compare today's costs for individual policies with those likely in 2014, the state relied on 2013 estimates from the Society of Actuaries, using a study that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, disputes as flawed.

The Society of Actuaries, based in Illinois, is an independent group serving professionals who measure and manage risk, and says it provided its estimates to help state officials nationwide project costs. CNN reported earlier this year that the society used an insurance company subsidiary to help calculate estimates, but the society stood by its work and said the analysis was reviewed by its membership.

HHS continued its criticism this week and, with other critics, said the state should have used actual 2013 figures rather than those from a study. Outside groups trying to replicate or better understand Taylor's figures said they found it impossible and questioned some of the figures in the study.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#50551 Jul 1, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to believe that expanding coverage to include the 50 million with no access to healthcare will cost more.
LOL! Why is anyone surprised by this? Of course there will be more claims - more people will have access to healthcare.
Too bad these "analysts" aren't reporting on the savings within Obamacare that will result in a $125 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
There is a problem with potential costs. Healthcare providers will be receiving several hundred billion dollars in a few months driven by the ACA and millions more Americans with health insurance.

There are very few cost-control measures in the ACA, and economically speaking, throwing billions of more dollars at healthcare providers for provided services historically leads to an increase in prices for those services.

Hospitals, while technically "non-profit," are still driven by price elasticities of demand.

We desperately needed healthcare reform in this country, I'm just afraid that the ACA isn't enough. I am strongly in support of a single-payer system.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50553 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hospitals Threaten Obamacare Savings by Exiting Program
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-29/hosp...
-------
Several Pioneer ACOs may exit program
Modern Healthcare: Several Pioneer ACOs May Exit Program
Medicare's most ambitious test of accountable care could lose a substantial number of its participants after the first year. As many as nine of 32 Pioneer accountable care organizations—the name given to Medicare's first and highest-risk test of the payment model—may exit the program, according to the CMS, and at least four have started to notify providers (Evans, 6/28).
Nothing scandalous or even negative here.

Multiple experimental programs were set up under the ACA to study potential cost-cutting measures for Medicare. Nine of the largest hospitals want to leave the "Pioneer Accountable Care Model" for another model.

There's nothing inherently bad about this. The purpose of the experiments was to find the best model for cutting costs. This is just part of that process.

When you are ignorant about the facts and have a visceral hatred of the President, you are bound to post articles like this and believe they actually mean something negative.

Legacy, you'd really be better off to dial back your emotionalism and educate yourself. Maybe you'd embarrass yourself less.

Maybe.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50554 Jul 1, 2013
Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a problem with potential costs. Healthcare providers will be receiving several hundred billion dollars in a few months driven by the ACA and millions more Americans with health insurance.
There are very few cost-control measures in the ACA, and economically speaking, throwing billions of more dollars at healthcare providers for provided services historically leads to an increase in prices for those services.
Hospitals, while technically "non-profit," are still driven by price elasticities of demand.
We desperately needed healthcare reform in this country, I'm just afraid that the ACA isn't enough. I am strongly in support of a single-payer system.
I agree that the ACA doesn't go far enough and single-payer is the best option, having shown success everywhere it's implemented.

But the ACA is the best compromise that was possible in our current political environment. There are problems that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the GOP is using those problems to condemn the whole effort and refusing to fix them in an attempt to undermine the ACA.

But there are, in fact, many cost-control measures in the law.

From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

How does the ACA control health care costs?
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/...
Sam Witches

Auburn, PA

#50556 Jul 1, 2013
the nose knows wrote:
Michele Bachmann’s Husband is Gay and she's against gays? LMAO !@!!
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/michele-bach...
she doesn't hate gay people, she just hates her husband.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50557 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
<quoted text>
Massachusetts Democrats To Force Governor To Seek Waiver From Obamacare Provisions
A very interesting ACA development is taking place in Massachusetts today as the state that “inspired” Obamacare tries to reconcile its current law with the new federal law. Push back in the compliance effort is coming from an unexpected source, the senior Democratic budget writer in the State Senate, Senator Stephen Brewer, presumably with support from the Senate President as well. The amendment that was filed would force President Obama’s good friend Governor Deval Patrick (D), and his Administration, to seek a waiver from certain elements of Obamacare. The move could come to a head if the provision lands on the Governor’s desk, resulting in an embarrassing political moment for the Obama Administration since the ACA is forcing significant changes to a state law they claim acted as a model in Washington.
...While state officials have known for some time that the ACA-required changes to rating factors would result in “extreme premium increases” and spike premiums for 60% of small companies (some as high as 50+%) in the state, the best the Patrick Administration could do was spread the increases out over 3 years under an agreement from CMS.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/201...
Wonder why you skipped this sentence:
"Turns out, the conventional wisdom comparing Romneycare and Obamacare has proven to be overly simplistic..."

You weren't trying to distort the facts, now would you? LOL!

MA has a better law than the ACA. It's perfectly reasonable for them to want to give preference to their own law.

If the GOP had been constructively engaged in healthcare reform rather than trying to undermine it at every step, the law likely would have been better. But this is the best we could do with only functioning party in DC.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50559 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You'd really be better off to dial back your emotionalism and educate yourself. Maybe you'd embarrass yourself less.
Maybe.
LOL!
LOL! You just don't have the capacity to think or talk for yourself, do you?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50561 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
As Egypt unravels, Team Obama increases support for Muslim Brotherhood
The news from Egypt is grim.
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi made international headlines this week as he appointed Adel Al Khayat as governor of Luxor, an ancient Egyptian city that is key tourist destination.
The problem with Mr. Khayat? He just happens to lead the “political” arm of a terrorist organization that massacred tourists in Luxor in 1997. The details of the attack are beyond grisly, with many of the dead disemboweled and notes “praising Islam” placed inside their mutilated bodies....
Against this backdrop of Shariah and jihad – and hidden behind the blanket news coverage of the Obama administration’s other scandals – the White House has decided to increase its financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood, quietly clearing the way for the U.S. to give Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/21/as-...
Jay Sekulow!? Seriously? LMAO!

The State Department laid out its national security rationale for allowing the aid, previously approved by Congress, to go forward.

----------

According to the May 9 memo, the U.S. national interests served by the aid include increasing security in the Sinai, helping prevent attacks from Gaza into Israel, countering terrorism and securing transit through the Suez Canal.

"A strong U.S. security partnership with Egypt, underpinned by FMF (Foreign Military Financing), maintains a channel to Egyptian military leadership, who are key opinion makers in the country," Kerry wrote in the memo which was obtained by Reuters.

"A decision to waive restrictions on FMF to Egypt is necessary to uphold these interests as we encourage Egypt to continue its transition to democracy," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-...

----------

You may disagree with the decision, but to claim the Obama made a personal decision to arm Muslim terrorists is simply a lie.

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#50562 Jul 1, 2013
Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a problem with potential costs. Healthcare providers will be receiving several hundred billion dollars in a few months driven by the ACA and millions more Americans with health insurance.
There are very few cost-control measures in the ACA, and economically speaking, throwing billions of more dollars at healthcare providers for provided services historically leads to an increase in prices for those services.
Hospitals, while technically "non-profit," are still driven by price elasticities of demand.
We desperately needed healthcare reform in this country, I'm just afraid that the ACA isn't enough. I am strongly in support of a single-payer system.
Cradle to grave?

Does that come with a free cellphone, car and kool cigarettes?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hanover Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Snyder's of Hanover (Aug '09) Dec 22 toms 5,576
pump it powder (Jan '12) Dec 15 askmetray28 39
Two charged in heroin arrest Dec 13 lady 1
power outage littlestown pa Nov '14 Pink Eye 6
Man hits boy, 4, in head with beer bottle at Ad... Nov '14 Pink Eye 7
13 charged in Littlestown drug bust (Jun '09) Nov '14 Just a thought 222
Police seize more than $250,000 in methamphetam... Nov '14 Just a thought 11
Hanover Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hanover People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hanover News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hanover

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:00AM
Updated 2014 Analysis for Final Week of Season
NFL 8:41 AM
Chip Kelly plans to evaluate Nick Foles in offseason
Bleacher Report10:17 AM
Complete Week 17 Preview for Baltimore
CBS Sports12:43 PM
Ravens want to get run game back on track
Bleacher Report 5:30 PM
Philadelphia Eagles vs. New York Giants: Complete Week 17 Preview for New York