ACA more about re-distribution than about real healthcare....

[justoffal]

Access to Care

• In 2012, 43 percent of adults, or 80 million people, said they had skipped or delayed getting needed healthcare or filling prescriptions because of the cost. This is an increase from 75 million people who reported such problems in 2010, and 64 million in 2005. More than a quarter (28 percent) of adults with a chronic health condition said they had skipped doses or not filled a prescription for their health condition because of the cost. (Source: The Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey 2012, April 2013.)

Wait something is missing here....2013, 2014, 2015 and soon 2016......

Here's some help.... types of debt collected recently from consumers. ( 2013)
and reports in for the past two years indicate a 25% increase over what you see below.



Yep the ACA has had an impact alright . Sure some of the individual bankruptcies may have decreased per capita but that is only because the debt has been redistributed to a broader public wallet as can clearly be seen here above.

How much of this is due to industry overcharge and corrpution? Probably 30 to 40 % ....but that has not been fixed by the ACA.. The ACA has simply given the collection agencies more targets to attack.

JO

 

[resident_evil]

Access to Care

• In 2012, 43 percent of adults, or 80 million people, said they had skipped or delayed getting needed healthcare or filling prescriptions because of the cost. This is an increase from 75 million people who reported such problems in 2010, and 64 million in 2005. More than a quarter (28 percent) of adults with a chronic health condition said they had skipped doses or not filled a prescription for their health condition because of the cost. (Source: The Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey 2012, April 2013.)

Wait something is missing here....2013, 2014, 2015 and soon 2016......

Here's some help.... types of debt collected recently from consumers. ( 2013)
and reports in for the past two years indicate a 25% increase over what you see below.

View attachment 33234

Yep the ACA has had an impact alright . Sure some of the individual bankruptcies may have decreased per capita but that is only because the debt has been redistributed to a broader public wallet as can clearly be seen here above.

How much of this is due to industry overcharge and corrpution? Probably 30 to 40 % ....but that has not been fixed by the ACA.. The ACA has simply given the collection agencies more targets to attack.

JO

The Obama legacy keeps shining on.

 

[as seen on tv]

good post.

the white house (yesterday) acknowledged that obamacare premiums were rising dramatically in most states. but then they issued THIS little tidbit (I'm paraphrasing)

"the premium increases are BEFORE federal subsidies and assistance, so the actual cost you pay out of pocket will increase at a lower rate"

A reminder that the rest of us - with private or employer insurance - will picking up the slack through our own premiums and taxes to subsidize the accelerating train wreck of Obamacare.
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/white-house-still-projects-optimism-aca

 

[justoffal]

good post.

the white house (yesterday) acknowledged that obamacare premiums were rising dramatically in most states. but then they issued THIS little tidbit (I'm paraphrasing)

"the premium increases are BEFORE federal subsidies and assistance, so the actual cost you pay out of pocket will increase at a lower rate"

A reminder that the rest of us - with private or employer insurance - will picking up the slack through our own premiums and taxes to subsidize the accelerating train wreck of Obamacare.
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/white-house-still-projects-optimism-aca

As is usually the case with debt...it doesn't disappear it merely migrates. No is there some justification for this? Perhaps...but that is an ethics argument not a political or a financial one.

 

[connieb]

good post.

the white house (yesterday) acknowledged that obamacare premiums were rising dramatically in most states. but then they issued THIS little tidbit (I'm paraphrasing)

"the premium increases are BEFORE federal subsidies and assistance, so the actual cost you pay out of pocket will increase at a lower rate"

A reminder that the rest of us - with private or employer insurance - will picking up the slack through our own premiums and taxes to subsidize the accelerating train wreck of Obamacare.
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/white-house-still-projects-optimism-aca

Exactly. I was trying to explain to a lefty yesterday that the amount the person pays on the exchange if they get subsidies is not the actual COST of the plan.....

Of course it went zooming right over them....

connie

 

[Arkady]

Access to Care

• In 2012, 43 percent of adults, or 80 million people, said they had skipped or delayed getting needed healthcare or filling prescriptions because of the cost. This is an increase from 75 million people who reported such problems in 2010, and 64 million in 2005. More than a quarter (28 percent) of adults with a chronic health condition said they had skipped doses or not filled a prescription for their health condition because of the cost. (Source: The Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey 2012, April 2013.)

Wait something is missing here....2013, 2014, 2015 and soon 2016......

Here's some help.... types of debt collected recently from consumers. ( 2013)
and reports in for the past two years indicate a 25% increase over what you see below.

View attachment 33234

Yep the ACA has had an impact alright . Sure some of the individual bankruptcies may have decreased per capita but that is only because the debt has been redistributed to a broader public wallet as can clearly be seen here above.

How much of this is due to industry overcharge and corrpution? Probably 30 to 40 % ....but that has not been fixed by the ACA.. The ACA has simply given the collection agencies more targets to attack.

JO

I don't see your point here. You have a pie chart showing more debt being collected. So? People are paying down their debts. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[trapdoor]

Access to Care

• In 2012, 43 percent of adults, or 80 million people, said they had skipped or delayed getting needed healthcare or filling prescriptions because of the cost. This is an increase from 75 million people who reported such problems in 2010, and 64 million in 2005. More than a quarter (28 percent) of adults with a chronic health condition said they had skipped doses or not filled a prescription for their health condition because of the cost. (Source: The Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey 2012, April 2013.)

Wait something is missing here....2013, 2014, 2015 and soon 2016......

Here's some help.... types of debt collected recently from consumers. ( 2013)
and reports in for the past two years indicate a 25% increase over what you see below.

View attachment 33234

Yep the ACA has had an impact alright . Sure some of the individual bankruptcies may have decreased per capita but that is only because the debt has been redistributed to a broader public wallet as can clearly be seen here above.

How much of this is due to industry overcharge and corrpution? Probably 30 to 40 % ....but that has not been fixed by the ACA.. The ACA has simply given the collection agencies more targets to attack.

JO

And it's prices are set to increase by (another) 30 percent on most coverage this year. Why? Because the overall scheme doesn't work.

 

[justoffal]

And it's prices are set to increase by (another) 30 percent on most coverage this year. Why? Because the overall scheme doesn't work.

It's very hard for me to believe that Obama and his cabinet did not already know that the money was going to funnel up into a personal " Cost Spike " per policy holder. In fact I am sure they counted on it and knew they had to hide it from the public. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that attaching more service to a shrinking revenue stream would produce lower prices for anything.

There is another issue here however and one that I do have some sympathy for. Call it the good Samaritan effect .... If we as a society see the increasing occurance of presonal ruin being visited upon fellow citizens as a result of medical bills....should we intefere? If so...how should we do it? Do we satisfy the medical providers with tax payer money? ( ACA ) Or do we examine why the prices are so high in the first place?

If we do determine that the prices are too high....how exactly do we fix that? People enter the medical field of their own free will.....I mean do you want a doctor that is under threat of administrational retaliation to treat you .... treating you? Or would you rather a free-will-agent who is in the field for people and then also want's to make a paycheck?

JO

 

[justoffal]

I don't see your point here. You have a pie chart showing more debt being collected. So? People are paying down their debts. Isn't that a good thing?

I sure hope you are kidding about this because I can't believe you would be this clueless.

What you see is a spike in the amount of medical debt per capita being created in the first place and it's on the rise like a monster. As an aside...It should probably say types of debt that have gone into collection...that debt is not necessarily collected and often get's charged off.

This is not " Household debt " per se....it is cost shifting...maybe some of the effect is good...but the point here is that the so called " Costs " have not disappeared at all they have merely morphed into tax payer debt via personal cost spike in policy costs per capita. Using the deductible and co-insurance co-payments as a backdoor financial umbilical of sorts money is being siphoned out of more wallets to meet the still rising costs. Perhaps this was inevitable...I don't know...but I do know that lying about it as an algebraic sum decrease is not acceptable and totally dishonest.

It may have the effect of dulling the impact on a small percentage of those who were extreme victims before the ACA....but it also has the effect of increasing personal medical debt numbers per household...which I believe was the point of the ACA in the first place frankly.

Final analysis.....ethical and moral arguments aside....the costs are going up for everyone despite the fact that it was sold as a cost decrease measure. If what they really mean was a dulling of the increase curve then they should have said it that way.

I suppose if people refuse to be good smaraitans you can force it on them with government regulations.....but that's not going to work with medical professionals. You cannot force them to work for less.....they will simply choose another field.

JO

 

[justoffal]

I don't see your point here. You have a pie chart showing more debt being collected. So? People are paying down their debts. Isn't that a good thing?

There are a number of charts available out there..

Here are few.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...household_debt_in_the_u_s_in_five_charts.html



The down-slope on the far right side represents the many billions in charge offs and abandoned collection efforts....it is not a true decline but more of a correction. The intrinsic debt slope is actually rising. Read the article.

JO

 

[Arkady]

I sure hope you are kidding about this because I can't believe you would be this clueless.

What you see is a spike in the amount of medical debt per capita being created in the first place and it's on the rise like a monster. As an aside...It should probably say types of debt that have gone into collection...that debt is not necessarily collected and often get's charged off.

This is not " Household debt " per se....it is cost shifting...maybe some of the effect is good...but the point here is that the so called " Costs " have not disappeared at all they have merely morphed into tax payer debt via personal cost spike in policy costs per capita. Using the deductible and co-insurance co-payments as a backdoor financial umbilical of sorts money is being siphoned out of more wallets to meet the still rising costs. Perhaps this was inevitable...I don't know...but I do know that lying about it as an algebraic sum decrease is not acceptable and totally dishonest.

It may have the effect of dulling the impact on a small percentage of those who were extreme victims before the ACA....but it also has the effect of increasing personal medical debt numbers per household...which I believe was the point of the ACA in the first place frankly.

Final analysis.....ethical and moral arguments aside....the costs are going up for everyone despite the fact that it was sold as a cost decrease measure. If what they really mean was a dulling of the increase curve then they should have said it that way.

I suppose if people refuse to be good smaraitans you can force it on them with government regulations.....but that's not going to work with medical professionals. You cannot force them to work for less.....they will simply choose another field.

JO

Perhaps if you could link to the actual studies you are relying on, I could figure out what it is you're trying to say.

 

[connieb]

It's very hard for me to believe that Obama and his cabinet did not already know that the money was going to funnel up into a personal " Cost Spike " per policy holder. In fact I am sure they counted on it and knew they had to hide it from the public. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that attaching more service to a shrinking revenue stream would produce lower prices for anything.

There is another issue here however and one that I do have some sympathy for. Call it the good Samaritan effect .... If we as a society see the increasing occurance of presonal ruin being visited upon fellow citizens as a result of medical bills....should we intefere? If so...how should we do it? Do we satisfy the medical providers with tax payer money? ( ACA ) Or do we examine why the prices are so high in the first place?

If we do determine that the prices are too high....how exactly do we fix that? People enter the medical field of their own free will.....I mean do you want a doctor that is under threat of administrational retaliation to treat you .... treating you? Or would you rather a free-will-agent who is in the field for people and then also want's to make a paycheck?

JO

That is the problem, between Drs. wanting to recoup the large investment they make in their careers as well as medical dquipment and device companies that for every one winner have 100's of losers.... how do you account for it?

The prices will not stop going up - until the market can bear no more. And that is why rather than using the private system the VA developed its own system. And that is why Drs. in many countries with socialized medicine are employees through the Gov't. They have to - to control salaries and wages and therefore costs....

We already have a primary care dr. shortage in this country.... how much worse do you think that will get when the salary is set at some measely 80 or 90K a year?

We have Drs. who are leaving Medicare - or limit the number of patients they take with Medicare - because the reimbursement is too low, its not worthwhile....

If the Gov't wants to control costs - it will have to set up a system of care - similar to the VA. But then anyone with means - will try to do everything they can to opt out of it. And, we will end up with the two tiered health system. The have nots will be on Gov't care, going to state hospitals and birthing their babies in big O'Rs separated by curtains, and sharing hospital rooms with as many people as they can cram in there, and the haves will have private hospitals, with nice private rooms, etc.