patrick.net

Homeboy says

I just don't get how anyone can look at data like this and conclude that Obamacare is the reason for a problem that existed years before the law was even written.

We will see if premiums will rise for those individuals that make $60,000 to $120,000 a year under Obamacare. There may be enough independent and luke-warm Dem voters in this category who will never again vote Democrat because of their premiums going up.

treatmentreport says

Does the Kaiser survey take in account rising deductibles and co pays?

Excellent point. Pass on more costs to the consumer while charging the same amount for insurance coverage. I think that will be the mantra starting in 2014.

treatmentreport says

Two months of deceleration after a couple of years of acceleration.

I see a line that goes up and down. How is that "a couple years of acceleration"?

Why do you post the rate of change graph? There's another graph below it that simply shows the index value. Much easier to comprehend. The commercial index line is a relatively steady increase, and the economic and medicare indices are slowing in their rates of increase. And all 3 have now slowed the rate of increase considerably, as it says in the commentary that you conveniently left out of your previous post.

treatmentreport says

How does the chart from S&P not make sense? It breaks healthcare inflation by sectors (commercial, medicare, etc) and shows the rate of change for the last eight years.

Two of the lines zigzag all over the place, and the third is mostly a steady decline. What is it you think that proves?

treatmentreport says

If ACA was really meant to work, we should see premiums go down not up. If someone told you in 2008 after Obama's victory that it's all we are going to get as far as healthcare reform is concerned, you would have been disappointed.

Well if you were being honest, you would have STARTED OUT being clear on what your point is. Apparently you are conceding that Obamacare hasn't caused premiums to go up, and your only complaint is that it hasn't made premiums go DOWN. So far, Obamacare has succeeded in getting healthcare for children who formerly had to go without, and has helped thousands with pre-existing conditions who couldn't get insurance before. And that is before the main parts of the law have even taken effect. Next year, millions will be insured who were not insured before, and low to middle income Americans will receive tax credits to help them afford insurance. If your only complaint is that rates didn't immediately get cut in half, before the main part of the law is even in effect, it's still a win.

Like I've said before, I'd rather have a single-payer system or a completely subsidized system like the successful systems in most other countries. But the republicans wouldn't let that happen here. It's a miracle we got any change at all.

adarmiento says

We will see if premiums will rise for those individuals that make $60,000 to $120,000 a year under Obamacare. There may be enough independent and luke-warm Dem voters in this category who will never again vote Democrat because of their premiums going up

Oh, I see. You are Nostradamus. We will see what we will see. Don't forget that many in that income range will receive tax credits. People who make $120K won't get any tax credits. Do I feel sorry for them? Not really. They can afford it.

adarmiento says

There may be enough independent and luke-warm Dem voters in this category who will never again vote Democrat because of their premiums going up.

If the republicans ever come up with a candidate who isn't a complete douchebag.

adarmiento says

Excellent point. Pass on more costs to the consumer while charging the same amount for insurance coverage. I think that will be the mantra starting in 2014.

Wrong again. Out of pocket expenses are explicitly capped under ACA. So-called "catastrophic" policies will not be allowed.

"Sources in both parties said" could mean nothing. Let's say I'm some aide with little real power and a lot of fears, hanging out in a DC bar griping and thinking out loud and some reporter overhears that. Who knows, since the story veers all over the place badly.

The "brain drain" fear seems complete bullshit. We all know the point of DC for aides is as a stepping stone to some lobbying job anyway. So they suck it up and accept the low Federal pay & benefits no matter what.

Homeboy,

You are blindly defending ObamaCare. Yes, it has some good parts, but it barely addresses the cost issue (there is 10B in it to study per patient instead of per procedure procedure payments). People like myself are bearing the cost increases. For example, my family could be making another house payment with our premium for a high deductible plan.

Again, if it was the reform that many expected in 2008, we would see premiums going down at this point.

treatmentreport says

You are blindly defending ObamaCare. Yes, it has some good parts, but it barely addresses the cost issue (there is 10B in it to study per patient instead of per procedure procedure payments). People like myself are bearing the cost increases. For example, my family could be making another house payment with our premium for a high deductible plan.

Again, if it was the reform that many expected in 2008, we would see premiums going down at this point.

Bullshit. I'm not "blindly defending" it. I'm saying that the problems you complain about are not the result of ACA. If it hasn't made things worse, and has made some improvement in some areas, I don't understand how you can complain about it. Are you saying we would be better off if the law had not been passed? Please explain how we would be better off with no ACA.

Your only complaint seems to be that YOUR rates have risen. Do you understand that there is a provision in the law that requires everyone to buy insurance, and that provision has not taken effect yet? Do you understand that the reason that provision was put there was that the system wouldn't be economically feasible without it? Right now, there are still millions of freeloaders in the system - people who do not have any health insurance. Right now, YOU ARE PAYING FOR THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GO WITHOUT INSURANCE. Starting in 2014, they will have to contribute. IF, next year, it becomes clear that rates are skyrocketing beyond the rate they were skyrocketing before the law, I will admit the law is a failure. But will the law's detractors be honest and include the subsidy that rate-payers get when they calculate the average premium? So far, republicans are not being honest at all - for example Sen. Richard Burr claiming that someone making $25K a year would have a "$7000 a year healthcare tab", when the law clearly states that such a person would only be responsible for $1,726.

So would you mind explaining to me how it is that you are criticizing a system that isn't even in effect yet?

CaptainShuddup says

Please don't, I want Obamacare in all of its glory mostly Warts and all, to go live in 2014. We really need a Republican President in 2016 to turn things around.

Right, because Republicans are opposed to $1T per 10 year tax funnels to the health care industry

First the Democrats brought us Medicare Part D.

Now they give us Obamacare.

Oh wait.... Medicare Part D was sponsored by speaker Dennis Hastert (R), sheparded through the process by Billy Tauzin (R), was passed by the Republican controlled house, was passed by the Republican controlled senate, and was signed into law by Republican George W. Bush.

Hmm, maybe the political parties aren't the common factor.

PhRMA (The PHarmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) was so happy with Billy Tauzin's performance on Medicare Part D that they made him their president with a seven figure salary.

PhRMA threw in some drug discounts to get a seat at the negotiating table for Obamacare, limited the impact on their profit margins, and then paid for a $150 advertising campaign to pass the bill with the mandatory coverage and government subsidies bringing them millions of new customers.

The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same counterfeit corporatist coin. While the people might get something (help buying drugs from for profit companies for senior citizens, help for the less fortunate buying medical insurance from for profit companies which then pay for profit companies for care) as a side effect significant legislation is more about enriching corporatist interests (the same thing happens with corn farmers, defense contractors, mortgage bankers, etc.).

Homeboy says

Don't forget that many in that income range will receive tax credits.

Wrong ! This is a classic example of how the liberals lie. Read the damn law (to paraphrase Senator Allan Simpson)!

It only subsidizes individuals making up to 400 % of the poverty limit, which is about $45,000 ! That is not within the range of $60,000 to $100,000. Read section 1402 about this.

SEC. 1402. REDUCED COST-SHARING FOR INDIVIDUALS ENROLLING IN QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS

ref: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/Title_I/Subtitle_E/Part_I/Subpart_A

I think liberals want to come out and say anybody making $65,000 to $100,000 a year and has no children is labeled as being "rich" even if they live in expensive places like NY or Boston. It is just that they don't want to blow their cover and goal of trying to get those in that category to become poorer. They want to destroy the middle class just as much as the Republicans!

adarmiento says

Wrong ! This is a classic example of how the liberals lie. Read the damn law (to paraphrase Senator Allan Simpson)!

It only subsidizes individuals making up to 400 % of the poverty limit, which is about $45,000 ! That is not within the range of $60,000 to $100,000. Read section 1402 about this.

How perfectly disingenuous of you. It's true that a single person with no family who makes $60,000 wouldn't get a subsidy, but A FAMILY OF FOUR making $60,000 would be at 256% of the poverty level, and would get a tax credit for any premium costs beyond $4,937.

I'll give you credit for actually knowing something about the law, which 99% of the whiners on Patnet don't, but I'm taking away the credit since you were disingenuous. A family of 4 is usually the metric used in the media, so it should have been obvious that's what I was referring to. Just because two people are talking about different things doesn't mean one of them is "lying".

adarmiento says

I gave you some examples like the elimination of the tax holiday which resulted in paying more for social security

You do know that the payroll tax holiday was never intended to be anything other than a temporary measure, right? The word "holiday" should have been your first clue.

Homeboy says

How perfectly disingenuous of you. It's true that a single person with no family who makes $60,000 wouldn't get a subsidy, but A FAMILY OF FOUR making $60,000 would be at 256% of the poverty level, and would get a tax credit for any premium costs beyond $4,937.

So will that single person who makes $60,000 end up paying more under Obamacare? Or will we have to wait and see when it is too late to reverse the damage ? You do set the bar real low by referring to a family of 4 that makes $60,000 especially if it applies to a family living in the San Francisco bay area.

Homeboy says

You do know that the payroll tax holiday was never intended to be anything other than a temporary measure, right? The word "holiday" should have been your first clue.

Nice try, but I answered the question in regards to what has changed since 2008 in regards to tax policy for those within the $60,000 to $100,000 bracket.

adarmiento says

So will that single person who makes $60,000 end up paying more under Obamacare? Or will we have to wait and see when it is too late to reverse the damage ?

Guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we? So far, ACA hasn't resulted in the catastrophic explosion of rates all the doom and gloomers predicted, so your entire premise is based on a guess, isn't it?

adarmiento says

You do set the bar real low by referring to a family of 4 that makes $60,000 especially if it applies to a family living in the San Francisco bay area.

Families of 4 will be subsidized up to $93,000 of income. As you said, read the damn law. LOL.

treatmentreport says

I am asking you for your data sources because "everything I've read" does not mean anything to me.

Here is a data source. According to this article, the annual growth rate in medical spending fell from 8.8% to 3%. So do you believe me yet, or are you going to come up with some more bullshit as to how the facts are "wrong"?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/health-spending-slowdown-may-last-as-habits-show-change.html

Homeboy says

So do you believe me yet, or are you going to come up with some more bullshit as to how the facts are "wrong"?

Conveniently, the data stops in 2011. Here is the actual study and not the Bloomberg article: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/5/835.abstract?=right

Why not include 2012 data? If you look at S&P chart that I provided, you can see what happens in 2012.

treatmentreport says

Conveniently, the data stops in 2011. Here is the actual study and not the Bloomberg article: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/5/835.abstract?=right

Why not include 2012 data? If you look at S&P chart that I provided, you can see what happens in 2012.

Yep, I knew you would refuse to accept the truth.

2012 data probably was not complete when they did the study. You seem to be implying it was deliberately left out as some sort of conspiracy. That's laughable.

Your "chart" is not complete either. It does not include the year 2012; only half of it. Here's the difference: The report shows the annual growth rate over two years, compared to the growth rate over the previous 10 years, which is meaningful. Whereas your "chart" takes a completely arbitrary data point, i.e. June 2012, and compares it to another single data point, June 2011. That tells us nothing. It is quite obvious from looking at your "chart" that the YOY rate of change fluctuates wildly. The only data that is at all meaningful is that which is averaged over a longer period of time. It's interesting that you are taking the June-to-June change, which is only halfway through 2012, IGNORING the entire second half of 2012, including that fact that the graph is heading DOWN at the end, and claim you are making some sort of sense. That's the absolute worst kind of data cherry-picking. And then for you to make the outrageous claim that the data from my link is incomplete, is absurd.

Next year will be interesting. Implementation is this year, so you'll see next year which way businesses are going.

My thought is that they'll start dumping employees onto exchanges.

Homeboy says

Yep, I knew you would refuse to accept the truth.

Wow! You are still telling me that S&P data is not credible. It goes back at least ten years; don't just look at the chart, look at the website link I provided.

Homeboy,

Can you explain why healthcare companies are outperforming the general market? Is it because they are going to make less?

treatmentreport says

Homeboy,

Can you explain why healthcare companies are outperforming the general market? Is it because they are going to make less?

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spun up a couple of 501(c)(4) groups and coordinated their $150M advertising campaign supporting Obamacare with the White House.

That's because they're looking forward to record profits from the millions of new customers.

treatmentreport says

If someone told you in 2008 after Obama's victory that it's all we are going to get as far as healthcare reform is concerned, you would have been disappointed.

Actually I was called a Bigot, yes "Bigot" was the word used to describe anyone who wasn't blindly regurgitating everything Obama said during his campaign rhetoric.

treatmentreport says

Homeboy says

Yep, I knew you would refuse to accept the truth.

Wow! You are still telling me that S&P data is not credible. It goes back at least ten years; don't just look at the chart, look at the website link I provided.

No, I did not say that. I said YOU are claiming it shows something that it doesn't show. Please read what I wrote. Don't make up a straw man.

treatmentreport says

Homeboy,

Can you explain why healthcare companies are outperforming the general market? Is it because they are going to make less?

What is that a chart of?

Homeboy says

What is that a chart of?

Index that tracks healthcare companies. It's outperforming S&P by over four percent.

treatmentreport says

Homeboy says

What is that a chart of?

Index that tracks healthcare companies. It's outperforming S&P by over four percent.

What is the NAME of the index? (Doesn't that usually appear right above the quote price, in the space that you cut off in your screen shot?) I would like to look at the data myself rather than be forced to look at your cherry-picked slice of it. You asked me to explain the data. How can I do that if you only provided a tiny 4 month piece of it? Could be any number of explanations. Given the fact that millions of people are going to be added to the health insurance rolls next year, and millions are going to receive tax subsidies to pay for their insurance, perhaps investors feel these are good signs for the health insurance industry. It's all guesswork until you do more than post some out-of-context chart from a screen shot.

Homeboy says

What is the NAME of the index?

XHS, VHT. Pick any index fund for healthcare companies and it is easily outperforming S&P index by 4 to 5 percent.

Homeboy says

perhaps investors feel these are good signs for the health insurance industry

The index includes more than just insurance companies. The point is that investors are betting that healthcare industry will be making more money than before. That does not agree with conclusion that ACA is actually controlling costs.

treatmentreport says

XHS, VHT. Pick any index fund for healthcare companies and it is easily outperforming S&P index by 4 to 5 percent.

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. XHS appears not to have existed before 2011, AFTER Obamacare was passed, so there is no baseline with which to compare. Wouldn't the anticipated future effects of the law have already been priced in to the index? I just don't see what this chart is supposed to prove.

treatmentreport says

The index includes more than just insurance companies. The point is that investors are betting that healthcare industry will be making more money than before. That does not agree with conclusion that ACA is actually controlling costs.

I disagree with that premise. Remember that millions of people are going to be added to the insurance rolls. It is certainly possible to increase your customer base and have more income, without necessarily having more profit. Also, doesn't that ETF include manufacturers of healthcare devices and equipment? The expectation is that these manufacturers will receive a windfall of business, and part of the law is that they will be taxed to help pay the costs of ACA. The expectation that more Americans will be getting healthcare doesn't necessarily translate into them paying more for it.

At the end of the day, this is all pure speculation on your part, and so far the facts just don't jibe with your contention that ACA is causing healthcare costs to skyrocket.

Homeboy says

It is certainly possible to increase your customer base and have more income, without necessarily having more profit.

You are supporting my point with this.

Prior to ACA, the talking point was "you are already paying for all these uninsured people" which was probably true. So there should not have been any significant increase in healthcare costs beyond inflation, but obviously that's not the case.

I understand what your arguments are, but to prove them you would have to build profit models for the industry which most healthcare analysts have done and the results of those models are telling us that there is going to be more revenue and a lot more profits.

treatmentreport says

Homeboy says

It is certainly possible to increase your customer base and have more income, without necessarily having more profit.

You are supporting my point with this.

Prior to ACA, the talking point was "you are already paying for all these uninsured people" which was probably true.

While technically true we were paying for less than ACA covers.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment for patients suffering from life and limb threatening conditions regardless of ability to pay.

We were only paying to cover people treated with those conditions and for the triage process rejecting others (like those with severe chest colds) where the recipients of care failed to pay their medical bills.

ACA goes much farther.

treatmentreport says

You are supporting my point with this.

No I'm not.

treatmentreport says

Prior to ACA, the talking point was "you are already paying for all these uninsured people" which was probably true. So there should not have been any significant increase in healthcare costs beyond inflation, but obviously that's not the case.

Huh? Are you talking about increases before or after ACA? I already showed you that the rate of increase in healthcare costs has SLOWED since ACA. Now I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

treatmentreport says

I understand what your arguments are, but to prove them you would have to build profit models for the industry which most healthcare analysts have done and

No, I don't have to prove anything. You are the one claiming costs are going up. If you want to blame ACA for that, you would have to show evidence that costs are going up FASTER than they were before ACA. You haven't shown that. In fact, I have shown the opposite.treatmentreport says

the results of those models are telling us that there is going to be more revenue and a lot more profits.

I find this extremely amusing. You got really bent out of shape when I pointed out that all the info I've read shows a declining rate of cost growth. You wrote:

treatment report says

I am asking you for your data sources because "everything I've read" does not mean anything to me

And now you have essentially said exactly the same thing. You're claiming that "every model" shows increasing profits. Well, that does not mean anything to me. LOL.

Besides which, you're getting completely off track. The issue is how much heath insurance is going to cost, not how much profit insurance companies make. Profits are capped under ACA. If they make too much profit, they will be required to issue rebates.