Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

General Discussion on any topic relating to CPAP and/or Sleep Apnea.
User avatar
49er
Posts: 5624
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:18 am

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by 49er » Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:25 am

ChicagoGranny wrote:Image
That is pretty funny even though I reluctantly support this act.

All jokes aside, what is your alternative plan?

49er

User avatar
Sloop
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:56 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by Sloop » Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:42 am

49er wrote:Those of you who opposed the Romney/Obama plan (Obama plan was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan), what do you propose as an alternative so that we have universal coverage on par with other countries?

49er

Well that's it in a nutshell. We don't WANT universal coverage ON PAR WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. What we want is:
A. To maintain our current quality of care -- the BEST medical care in the world
B. To lower health care costs
D. To eliminate intr-state health insurance barriers
C. To enact tort reform to greatly restrict out of control frivolous lawsuits
D. To encourage Health Insurance companies to provide "group" packages for the uninsured

Here is an expansion on the above ideas (from a Republican website):

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
Last edited by Sloop on Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
................21+ years of restorative, apnea-free sleep.

User avatar
ChicagoGranny
Posts: 15176
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by ChicagoGranny » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:11 am

Sloop, Don't forget:

- Change the tax code so that employee insurance policy costs are not deductible by businesses. This provision in our tax code has been the root of much of the problems we have today.

- States should not have the power to determine what is in policies. This should be between the individual and the insurance companies.
"It's not the number of breaths we take, it's the number of moments that take our breath away."

Cuando cuentes cuentos, cuenta cuántas cuentos cuentas.

Ticman
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:59 am
Location: South Carolina

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by Ticman » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:39 am

Sloop and CG that sounds like a very good plan.

_________________
Humidifier: S9™ Series H5i™ Heated Humidifier with Climate Control
Additional Comments: ResScan 4.3, Climate line Max hose, H5i has dishwasher safe tank, CMS50E Bluetooth
S8 Autoset II backup/travel machine.

User avatar
49er
Posts: 5624
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:18 am

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by 49er » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:26 am

Slope,

Thank you for responding.

Hmm, if I was a citizen of another country that has universal care like Great Britain and god forbid, had a heart attack, I would be treated and not have to worry about bankruptcy due to not having health insurance. And you don't want that for people who are uninsured?

Regarding the ideas you raised, if the uninsured can't afford health insurance, how are tax credits going to be helpful? That is what is unclear in the Obama plan about subsidies.

Same problem with an HSA. It also discourages preventative care which can head off problems before they become costly.

I posted a previously link on this but Texas passed a tort reform law and costs have greatly increased. Actually, many more people who have legitimate claims don't sue vs. people who sue with frivolous lawsuits.

My mother was one of these people who was the victim of malpractice when she was alive. Unfortunately, since she was elderly, I had about as much chance of winning a suit as becoming a millionaire.

I think if hospitals would commit to improving safety such as controlling infections, costs would go down considerably. Another post.

Personally, I don't think loosening intra state barriers would be helpful because insurance companies are in the business to make money and wouldn't offer decent plans.

Since insurance companies see covering preexisting conditions as a money making loss (can't cut their million dollar profits), what incentives would you provide?

Agree with you about electronic medical records as someone who took psych meds for 15 years before tapering off of them. One of my biggest fears is that this will show up when I see a doctor when I don't want to disclose that.

Rewarding healthy lifestyle choices sound good in principle but here is the problem.

What doctors think is a health life style choice is debatable as evidenced regarding the issue of diet and statin drugs.

Obviously, there is no debate about smoking.

Finally, having the greatest healthcare system in the world which I think is debatable isn't worth a darn if you can't access it.

CS





Sloop wrote:
49er wrote:Those of you who opposed the Romney/Obama plan (Obama plan was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan), what do you propose as an alternative so that we have universal coverage on par with other countries?

49er

Well that's it in a nutshell. We don't WANT universal coverage ON PAR WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. What we want is:
A. To maintain our current quality of care -- the BEST medical care in the world
B. To lower health care costs
D. To eliminate intr-state health insurance barriers
C. To enact tort reform to greatly restrict out of control frivolous lawsuits
D. To encourage Health Insurance companies to provide "group" packages for the uninsured

Here is an expansion on the above ideas (from a Republican website):

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.

Kerr
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:22 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by Kerr » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:38 am

49er wrote:Those of you who opposed the Romney/Obama plan (Obama plan was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan), what do you propose as an alternative so that we have universal coverage on par with other countries?
First, total repeal of ObamaCare.
Second, pass a bill that permits the purchasing of insurance across state lines. This will allow competition across the entire country and help lower prices.
Third, pass a bill that allows parents to keep their children on their insurance up to 26.
Fourth, pass a tort reform bill that caps damages in lawsuits and institutes a loser pays system. This reduces the legal expenses due to parasite lawyers and makes sure people aren't looking for a payday to try to become rich. Legitimate cases that have actual damages should still win and get their payments, but not at the cost of increasing everyone else's insurance dramatically.
Fifth, remove any year long limitation on health savings accounts. If you put money into the savings account it can NOT be taxed. It is NEVER taken away as long as you live, and can be spend on healthcare needs.

ALL OF THIS AVOIDS A MULTI TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT TO CHINA AND IT GIVES FREEDOM INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCE. You know, freedom, that thing people fought and died for a couple hundred+ years ago today.

User avatar
Sloop
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:56 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by Sloop » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 am

49er wrote:
Finally, having the greatest healthcare system in the world which I think is debatable isn't worth a darn if you can't access it.

49er

In addition to the approx 16 new insidious taxes in the law, how about you addressing these issues with ObamaCare:
--Doctors will be paid less while asked to do more.
--More regulatory committees telling them what they can and cannot do.
--More services that are turned down.
--More of a struggle to practice medicine.
--Doctors are going to have to dramatically increase their patient load because of 32 million more patients.
--Estimations are that there will be 160,000 doctors short by 2025, and that doesn't include the huge percentage that are going to quit out of frustration, or at a minimum backing out of the insurances like Medicade or Medicare.

That list doesn't even begin to touch on the tremendous debt to our country that ObamaCare has incurred. Within the first year, the CBO had to DOUBLE its estimate of from 700 Billion Dollars up to 1.4 Trillion. That is just what happened one year after the law went into effect. Do you want guess how out-of-control these costs will be in 10 years?

You used health care in the UK as an example of something good. " Hmm, if I was a citizen of another country that has universal care like Great Britain and god forbid, had a heart attack, I would be treated and not have to worry about bankruptcy due to not having health insurance. And you don't want that for people who are uninsured?"

From what I read, Great Britain's healtcare is atrocious. God forbid we ever have to settle for that.

Finally -- regarding your quote above. All of our citizens, not to mention all of our ILLEGALS, have ACCESS to our heath care. What the debate is about is INSURANCE and runaway costs.
Last edited by Sloop on Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
................21+ years of restorative, apnea-free sleep.

User avatar
pats
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:52 pm

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by pats » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:54 am

Sloop wrote:A. To maintain our current quality of care -- the BEST medical care in the world
Huh? The USA's health care outcomes are not at all outstanding, when compared to what is normal among industrialized countries.

Of course, the very best of USA medical care is as good as any in the world. It is one of the countries to which the very wealthy travel for medical care.

In the middle, my impression is that the care I've received in the USA, with continuous access to medical insurance, is comparable to both the care I got when I was living in England, and the care I see my relatives getting in England from the NHS. It is better in some ways, worse in others. For example, during the last few years of my mother's life she tended to catch serious colds very easily. If she had had to go to the doctor's office and sit for half an hour in a waiting room full of sick people to get routine care, she would probably not have lived as long, and with as good quality of life, as she did. The NHS provided house calls from her doctor, and from a nurse to e.g. draw blood for tests.

The really distinctive features of the USA system, compared to most industrialized countries, are a very large class of people who are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, and a smaller but still significant class of people who only get acute care, with practically no access to preventative and chronic condition care. As long as a significant fraction of the population does not get e.g. sleep labs and XPAP for sleep apnea, the USA is very unlikely to advance to having first rank health care outcomes.

_________________
Mask: Swift™ FX Nasal Pillow CPAP Mask with Headgear
Additional Comments: Software: SleepyHead.

User avatar
PST
Posts: 986
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by PST » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:03 am

Sloop wrote: Here is an expansion on the above ideas (from a Republican website):

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
This is originally from an editorial Governor Bobby Jindal wrote in 2009, before passage of the PPACA, which is probably why it contains so many elements that found their way into the act: pools for buying insuance (the exchanges), compulsory coverage of pre-existing conditions, tax credits to make coverage more affordable to the uninsured, etc. He might not want to admit to them now, any more than Governor Romney or the AEI do. There is practically no conservative idea Republicans won't repudiate once it has Obama-stink on it.

What impresses me though, is the vast exercise of federal power that would be necessary to implement some of these points. Talk about a federal takeover! As bullet points, these look pretty simple, but think about what it would actually require to make them happen. Take two examples:

Portability: Jindal says that if I am working for Company A in Houston and move to Company B in Seattle, I should "own" my policy and take it with me. I'm not criticizing the idea, but there would be thousands of details to work out, and the states could not do it due to the interstate nature of the proposal. Would B now have to write check to my old insurer every month? Would it have to contribute as much as A did, even if it pays less for its employees? If I had an HMO plan, who would my doctors be? Now, think about millions of employees changing jobs and locations over decades. It would leave every employer dealing with dozens of insurers. That won't happen. What the portability proposal really means is the end of employer-sponsored health insurance, replaced by a system where people choose their own coverage from an insurer of their choice. I'm cool with the idea, personally, but It sounds like the PPACA exchanges, doesn't it? The difference is that the PPACA keeps employer plans and adds the exchanges for those who lack employer coverage, with tax incentives and penalties designed to prevent employers from dropping their plans. The Jindal proposal, when you consider its implications, is more radical.

Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Seriously? After all the scorn heaped on the insurance mandate as being equivalent to allowing the government to penalize me for not eating broccoli, Jindal would actually, literally, allow the government to penalize me for not eating broccoli (or authorize insurers to do it, which amounts to the same thing).

One last thing. Is there actually any realistic way to compel insurance companies to cover per-existing conditions, as Governor Jindal says we should do, while at the same time time allowing people to wait until they are sick to buy insurance? He is one of the governors who sued to strike down the mandate. How can that work without sending premiums through the roof when people can wait to buy insurance until they need it? That would hardly be insurance at all. I think Jindal is merely talking a good game, pretending to support a measure he knows is popular, but without the willingness to support the measure necessary to make it work.

User avatar
49er
Posts: 5624
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:18 am

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by 49er » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:03 am

""Finally -- regarding your quote above. All of our citizens, not to mention all of our ILLEGALS, have ACCESS to our heath care. What the debate is about is INSURANCE and runaway costs.""

I am dammed fool for even thinking we could have a reasonable discussion and get off the bleeping rhetoric. My apologies to the other posters for even entertaining this thought.

I said I was a reluctant supporter, remember?

If I need emergency care, i will only get treatment in the ER to stabilize and nothing more. That is not true access and you darned right know it.

49er

User avatar
Sloop
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:56 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by Sloop » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:11 am

49er wrote: If I need emergency care, i will only get treatment in the ER to stabilize and nothing more. That is not true access and you darned right know it.

49er
That is simply not true. Hospitals are FULL of people, without insurance, who got admitted with some ailment via the Emergency Room.
................21+ years of restorative, apnea-free sleep.

User avatar
rimp
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by rimp » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:00 am

As a newbie and a nurse....here's my nickel:) France, Great Britain and Canada have excellent health care systems.
Most of our politicians have money in their pockets from the insurance and pharm companies. The politicians in D.C. don't give a rats a** about the average person and what insurance costs....if you can afford to get it. Never mind they have a luxury health care plan.
Employers know you need to keep your insurance....esp if you have a pre-existing condition. To change insurance companies would be cost prohibitive IF anyone will insure you. I've seen too many people get different levels of medical care because of different insurances.
Good healthcare should be a right.
I'm mad that the universal healthcare portion of "Obamacare" didn't pass. But big Insurance and pharma have deep pockets to promote negative advertizing to protect their obscene profits. If we didn't have social security and medicare many of our elderly would get no health care and be well below the poverty line.
At this time your insurance company dictates what kind of care you receive or don't receive as the case often is.
Also I've seen too many people go thru bankruptcy because of one serious illness/injury.....this is so wrong.
If we truly are a caring nation we should adopt a better health care system than we have now.

Off my soapbox.

_________________
Mask: Mirage™ FX Nasal CPAP Mask with Headgear
Additional Comments: Sleepyhead

User avatar
DreamStalker
Posts: 7509
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:58 am
Location: Nowhere & Everywhere At Once

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by DreamStalker » Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:15 pm

Sloop wrote: That is simply not true. Hospitals are FULL of people, without insurance, who got admitted with some ailment via the Emergency Room.
Now there's the solution! ... Just take the greedy insurance parasite bastards out of the food chain.

Everybody stops paying for any and all health insurance and get healthcare via the Emergency Room ... I like your idea cuz that will leave even more worthless currency for toilet paper use.

Silly humans!
President-pretender, J. Biden, said "the DNC has built the largest voter fraud organization in US history". Too bad they didn’t build the smartest voter fraud organization and got caught.

User avatar
Goofproof
Posts: 16087
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Central Indiana, USA

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by Goofproof » Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:34 pm

Sloop wrote:
49er wrote:Those of you who opposed the Romney/Obama plan (Obama plan was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan), what do you propose as an alternative so that we have universal coverage on par with other countries?

49er

Well that's it in a nutshell. We don't WANT universal coverage ON PAR WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. What we want is:
A. To maintain our current quality of care -- the BEST medical care in the world
B. To lower health care costs
D. To eliminate intr-state health insurance barriers
C. To enact tort reform to greatly restrict out of control frivolous lawsuits
D. To encourage Health Insurance companies to provide "group" packages for the uninsured

Here is an expansion on the above ideas (from a Republican website):

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
One more item, fair COBRA payments, Say 125% of what your previous provider was getting to keep the policy in force. Jim.
Use data to optimize your xPAP treatment!

"The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease." Voltaire

User avatar
NateS
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: Kaatskill Mts-Washington Irving

Re: Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Post by NateS » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:02 pm

Sloop wrote:That list doesn't even begin to touch on the tremendous debt to our country that ObamaCare has incurred. Within the first year, the CBO had to DOUBLE its estimate of from 700 Billion Dollars up to 1.4 Trillion. That is just what happened one year after the law went into effect. Do you want guess how out-of-control these costs will be in 10 years?
Its estimate of what? This is another example of the careless, or deliberately misleading, copying from propaganda organs I spoke earlier.

Did you read the CBO report? It's available on the web.

Do you really want those who read what you wrote to believe that the number you quote is its cost per year? And that the estimate went up, not down?
No, Obamacare’s Cost Didn’t Just Double. Sigh.
Jonathan Cohn March 15, 2012 | 9:40 am


Sorting through the deceptive attacks on health care reform gets old, even for me. But on Wednesday the Republicans and their allies made a claim so obviously misleading that they, and the media outlets parroting them, must have known they spreading false information.

The basis for the claim is the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections for the Affordable Care Act, which critics (and I!) like to call Obamacare. When Congress first passed the law, in the spring of 2010, CBO made official estimates of how much the law would cost, how many people would get insurance as a result, and so on. It updated that estimate one year later and has, now, updated it one more time.

The CBO distributed its report in the morning and, by 11 a.m., Republican offices on Capitol Hill were spitting out press releases about it. According to the Republicans, CBO had discovered that Obamacare was going to cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years. “The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed,” Tom Price, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said. Within a few hours, both Fox News and the Washington Times were carrying online stories making the same claim. According to the Fox News account, CBO was “showing that the bill is substantially more expensive—twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.”

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform’s cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

To figure out the cost of health care reform, CBO looks at each of the law’s component parts and, for accounting purposes, groups them into different categories. It calls one category “gross cost of coverage expansions”—that’s the amount of money the federal government will spend to help people get insurance, mostly by offering Medicaid to more people or giving people subsidies they can use to help offset the cost of private insurance. Last year, CBO estimated that the gross cost of coverage expansion from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.445 trillion. Now CBO thinks the gross cost will be $1.496 trillion. The number shifted, in part, because the CBO has changed its projections for economic growth. (MSNBC’s Tom Curry has a nice explanation of this.) But, in the context of such a large a budget projection, that’s barely any difference at all.

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It’s only slightly more money than the previous year’s outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don’t start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

Still, doesn’t that just validate what the law’s critics have always said, that the administration was playing games to hide the program’s true impact on the deficit? Hardly. Remember, this is just the raw cost of expanding insurance coverage we’re talking about here—in other words, the money the federal government is sending out the door. The new law also calls for new revenue, in the form of taxes and penalties. It also reduces spending, mostly through Medicare, to help offset the cost of the coverage expansion. When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.

Yes, you read that right: The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.

I
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/1 ... -price-fox

See also:

MediaMatters
Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled
RESEARCH ››› MARCH 16, 2012 12:38 PM EDT ››› JUSTIN BERRIER


http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/0 ... h-c/184978

Nate

_________________
Mask: DreamWear Nasal CPAP Mask with Headgear
Additional Comments: ResMed AirCurve 10 ASV; Dreamwear Nasal Mask Original; CPAPMax Pillow; ResScan & SleepyHead
Last edited by NateS on Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Central sleep apnea AHI 62.6 pre-VPAP. Now 0 to 1.3
Present Rx: EPAP: 8; IPAPlo:11; IPAPHi: 23; PSMin: 3; PSMax: 15
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." —Groucho Marx