patrick.net

errc says

Why do you always refer to HeritageFoundationCare as Obamneycare?

I've used both terms, and opposed all three versions. Heritage Foundation proposed the individual mandate to buy insurance from corporate sponsors around 1990, but disowned the subsequent legislation, which was much more bloated and expensive. Obama and Romney signed proudly the legislation many called Obamacare and before that Romneycare, hence Obamneycare.

"That's one of your many comments that undermine your credibility. Democrats took power in 2009, and enacted Obamneycare in 2010. Life expectancy stopped increasing in 2011, and fell in 2015."

lol--only in your deluded world. You have one year of noisy data and are attempting to attribute cause and effect? MIsleading at best and more likely disingenuous. It's not even worth addressing.

"The current system is killing people. You're so narcissistic that you don't care at all the widening disparity in lifespan between rich and poor, as long as the tax code does what you want it to do, and you can't focus on any of the other provisions of the Senate bill."

Of course I care about it. I just understand how cause and effect work so I can realize that you are incorrect in your conclusions.

"Try citing specific provisions related to insurance. Sections 104&105 would help somewhat to reduce the deficit and relieve some of the absurd pricing pressure, for example; section 104 alone would reduce the deficit by $30bn/yr."

Yes, if you cover fewer people, total costs will go down. I just happen to believe that we should be reducing cost per person rather than eliminating coverage for certain groups.

"The pro-Obamneycare propaganda was running faster and more widely, with more funding, including the evening news brought to you primarily by PhRMA. You seem to blame the existence of people telling different sides for the fact that people opposed the legislation; you prefer perhaps a partisan echo chamber where only the official propaganda is presented."

That's just incorrect. I prefer to tell the truth rather than purposely mislead and lie (I thought you were done with me) like you.

http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-obamacare-propaganda-ignores-federal-subsidies

"This is how propaganda works. You don’t state all the facts. You select bits and build an argument. Forbes’ editors should know better—especially since the publication that bills itself as a capitalist’s tool is whacking a law with gigantic profits for its insurance industry friends.

On Thursday, Bloomberg.com reported that anti-Obamacare forces have so far outspent the pro-Obamacare side five-to-one, with its advertising approaching $500 million."

Update: since you updated your comment above, I see you're definitely lying. From YOUR link:

"Bloomberg’s source, Kantar Media, which tracks ad buys and trends, said the pro-Obamacare side would spend $500 million as the law is rolled out this fall and next year. That’s part of the $3.7 billion given to states to create and promote their program. And that does not count free media coverage, such as the president’s recent healthcare speeches."

IOW, pro-Obamneycare propaganda outweighed anti-Obamneycare by a ratio of more than 7:1. Bribing PhRMA with subsidies got the MSM commercial "news" on board too; look at the PhRMA advertising and marketing budgets (more than $100bn/yr) to see the volume of advertising and marketing power pushing that POS. That's consistent with what I had been seeing, and saying above. Thanks for the link, even though you mislead with selective omission as you (falsely) accuse others of doing.

joeyjojojunior says

I thought you were done with me

I was, but you came back, and you still add nothing. No citations, no links other than a blog mainly about taxes and relying on a push poll, basically nothing. I present five years of data and you dismiss them as one year, but the 2016 data will arrive soon enough and we'll see if you find a way to dismiss those also. You fail utterly to address the cost increases, the medical errors, etc. You say that I am suffering delusions and you accuse me of lying, but you are clearly doing one or the other or some of each. Democrats had power 2009-11, did what they did, and we have five years of data to see the results: huge increases in spending, no increase in life expectancy. And, based on forecasts, I expect we'll soon have six years of data showing the same thing. You keep saying what you want to say, whether you believe it or not; if you believe it, then I feel sorry for you, and if you're merely lying, then I don't.

"Update: since you updated your comment above, I see you're definitely lying. From YOUR link:

"Bloomberg’s source, Kantar Media, which tracks ad buys and trends, said the pro-Obamacare side would spend $500 million as the law is rolled out this fall and next year. That’s part of the $3.7 billion given to states to create and promote their program. And that does not count free media coverage, such as the president’s recent healthcare speeches."

IOW, pro-Obamneycare propaganda outweighed anti-Obamneycare by a ratio of more than 7:1. Bribing PhRMA with subsidies got the MSM commercial "news" on board too; look at the PhRMA advertising and marketing budgets (more than $100bn/yr) to see the volume of advertising and marketing power pushing that POS. That's consistent with what I had been seeing, and saying above. Thanks for the link, even though you mislead with selective omission as you (falsely) accuse others of doing."

I think you need a refresher on what "lie" means. And math. Anti-ACA folks had already spent $500MM, before the Pro-ACA folks started advertising. The anti-folks didn't stop spending at that point. They continued spending and probably ramped it up. And $500MM vs. $500MM isn't 7:1. Are you really that bad at math?? Or are you being purposely disingenuous again and pretending that the total of $3.7MM is being used on ads when it explicitly says only $500MM of that is for advertising?

"I was, but you came back"

So, another lie from curious then.

"I present five years of data and you dismiss them as one year"

ACA was only in effect starting in 2014. How did ACA affect mortality in 2009? or 2010?

joeyjojojunior says

How did ACA affect mortality in 2009? or 2010?

I cited data 2010-2015. Some provisions came into effect immediately. 3.7bn vs 500 million is more than 7:1. The advertising and marketing budget of PhRMA dwarfs both of those numbers, so they're moot: the point is the ratio ends up being more than 7:1. If you can find anyone who outspent PhRMA's advertising and marketing budgets, please link. From the moment the WH made its secret deal with PhRMA in August 2009, which the WH denied initially but admitted later, the pro-Obamneycare propaganda outweighed anti-Obamneycare. I saw it, and I continue to see it in CA where the State and the Kaisers' Empire advertise everywhere. One truth in your link is that real people would "get the last word." The legislation continued to poll around -10 through 2016, when voters completed the 2010-2016 process of separating Democrats from power.

Recently though, House Republicans proposed even worse legislation, so polls have turned favorable. That's your best hope: Republicans doing something even worse, making Obamneycare look almost decent in comparison. Thus the two-step dance continues: always blame "the other" side, pay no attention to the crooks on "your" side selling you down the river. Otherwise, it's a crap sandwich and most people could smell it even if you couldn't.

"3.7bn vs 500 million is more than 7:1"

So you are lying and pretending that the $3.7MM number was all spend on advertising when the article explicitly says otherwise. Par for the course.

"Recently though, House Republicans proposed even worse legislation, so polls have turned favorable. That's your best hope: Republicans doing something even worse, making Obamneycare look almost decent in comparison. Thus the two-step dance continues: always blame "the other" side, pay no attention to the crooks on "your" side selling you down the river. Otherwise, it's a crap sandwich and most people could smell it even if you couldn't."

And more curious lying. I'm not a big backer of ACA. I've always been on record here saying we need to look at what works at other 1st world countries and adopt the best parts. My hope for ACA was that it started us down the path to single payer. Denying coverage to people shouldn't be the solution--rather it should be reducing the cost of care.

joeyjojojunior says

rather it should be reducing the cost of care.

How do you do that while maintaining quality and preventing rationing?

"How do you do that while maintaining quality and preventing rationing?"

Not sure if you're being facetious or genuinely asking, but here's a good start:

http://issues.org/26-2/milstein/

"Senate Republican leaders on Thursday unveiled a fresh proposal.... Republicans said the revised bill would provide roughly $70 billion in additional funds that states could use... The bill already included more than $100 billion for such purposes.

The new bill, like earlier versions, would convert Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to a system of fixed payments to states. But in the event of a public health emergency, state Medicaid spending in a particular part of a state would not be counted toward the spending limits, known as per capita caps.
***
If an insurer offered “sufficient minimum coverage” on the exchange that remains subject to federal mandates...it could also offer coverage outside the exchange that would be exempt from many of those mandates...the Republican bill would create a fund to make payments to insurers for the costs of covering high-risk people enrolled in health plans on the exchanges.
***
People who enroll in catastrophic health insurance plans would be eligible for federal tax credits to help pay premiums. Such plans typically have lower premiums and high deductibles.
***
The bill would, for the first time, allow people to use tax-favored health savings accounts to pay insurance premiums.
***
Like the previous bill, it would end the requirement that most Americans have health coverage, and it would make deep cuts to Medicaid, capping payments to states and rolling back its expansion under the Affordable Care Act.
***
In a notable change, the bill would keep the two taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act on people with high incomes: the 3.8 percent tax on investment income and the 0.9 percent payroll tax.
***
Republicans expect that an analysis of the new bill will be released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office early next week.
***
Mr. McConnell has said he intends to take up the revised bill next week...."

The new bill looks a bit more like NIxon's plan for a voluntary private system with federal backing. Compared to the OP bill, this edition would continue some of the current taxes and subsidies, buying patronage network support by continuing to monetize chronic conditions rather than cure them. Neither bill includes any money for research, as usual from Republicans, many of whom oppose science and favor faith healing. Where the previous bill might have encouraged and rewarded biotech entrepreneurs developing disruptive cures, this edition seems to maintain more of the chronic revenue models in existing legislation.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BetterCareJuly13.2017.pdf

Interesting article on US health care costs and outcomes. It appears the inflection point where our system went off the rails was ~1980. That's when the costs started skyrocketing out of control without any additional benefits in life expectancy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/upshot/medical-mystery-health-spending-1980.html

"The United States devotes a lot more of its economic resources to health care than any other nation, and yet its health care outcomes aren’t better for it.
That hasn’t always been the case. America was in the realm of other countries in per-capita health spending through about 1980. Then it diverged.
It’s the same story with health spending as a fraction of gross domestic product. Likewise, life expectancy. In 1980, the U.S. was right in the middle of the pack of peer nations in life expectancy at birth. But by the mid-2000s, we were at the bottom of the pack.
What happened?"