DescentBB

Spidey wrote:There is absolutely no evidence that the government is going to change its ways any time soon.

“But this time it’ll be different…I promise.”

really, it wouldn't take a massive change, size wise, more a change of leadership and having that leadership absolutely shift priorities. Most of the source issues can be traced back to the corporate interests being preserved, for sheer profit, throughout all government spending programs. Yes, there is bureaucratic loss and overhead, but for most programs with private sector comparison, the overhead is far less for government when you take the stockholder demand for short term profit out of the equation to some extent.

...........

Speaking of supply and demand, insufficient supply is one of the price drivers in the healthcare industry, please explain how single payer addresses that issue. Hell while you are at it please explain where the ACA addresses that issue.

ACA didn't have that aspect as a target. Single payer nations address that by providing incentives(largely scholarship incentives) to educate and train more healthcare professionals. As it is, the US is coming along, but the AIDS scare left a generation-sized hole in healthcare professionals that is starting to refill with younger professionals. When I went into laboratory science, most programs teaching that were closing down for lack of students. Probably, only the fact that I'd studied some virology in grad school kept me from the fear of that virus. Digression aside, the point is that some aspects of the supply side are cyclical, some can be tweaked in the proper direction. However, I don't see why you feel that the fix should be in any way tied to changing basic healthcare from a privilege to a birthright and going to a single payer system. That is akin to expecting the Agriculture Bill to also fix the issues around soybean prices. Every legislative act need not be some sort of Omnibus bill. That is precisely WHY we see some the excess you decry.

“Omnibus”

Yea right…silly me, why would I expect a law that exacerbates a problem, to possibly try and address that problem.

Silly silly me.

“Birthright”

Wow, if that is not one of the most elitist concepts I have ever heard.

Spidey wrote:“Omnibus”

Yea right…silly me, why would I expect a law that exacerbates a problem, to possibly try and address that problem.

Silly silly me.

maybe, my point, which got right past you, was that when we try to stuff every issue into ONE bill, we end up with hundreds of pages into which get buried all kinds of special favors and pet projects. If you wish to make government more responsible, stopping this routine practice might be a really good starting point.

“Birthright”

Wow, if that is not one of the most elitist concepts I have ever heard.

what is so elitist about the reasonable expectation that basic healthcare ought only be available to some of us? Explain.

callmeslick wrote:[quote="Spidey"

“Birthright” Wow, if that is not one of the most elitist concepts I have ever heard.

what is so elitist about the reasonable expectation that basic healthcare ought only be available to some of us? Explain.

We already assume a certain amount of rights to heath by birth. That's why it is criminal for a parent to withhold proper medical treatment for a child. Don't know why it should be legal to withhold medical treatment to people by putting it behind economic barriers. Sounds like profits over people if you ask me.

callmeslick wrote:maybe, my point, which got right past you, was that when we try to stuff every issue into ONE bill, we end up with hundreds of pages into which get buried all kinds of special favors and pet projects. If you wish to make government more responsible, stopping this routine practice might be a really good starting point.

I wouldn’t expect anyone to “try to stuff every issue into ONE bill” but an attempt to control collateral damage is only prudent.

But hey, you just go on trying to misrepresent everything I say, and I will continue to consider you a jerk.

Spidey wrote:I wouldn’t expect anyone to “try to stuff every issue into ONE bill” but an attempt to control collateral damage is only prudent.

It would be, but healthcare costs are NOT 'collateral' damage from the ACA. They simply weren't part of the thrust. If you wish to see actual functional legislation around costs, that will take some work and compromise.

But hey, you just go on trying to misrepresent everything I say, and I will continue to consider you a jerk.

I'm giving you your own words back. Feel free to continue whining about it, and I'll spare description of what I think you to be, OK?

callmeslick wrote: It would be, but healthcare costs are NOT 'collateral' damage from the ACA. They simply weren't part of the thrust. If you wish to see actual functional legislation around costs, that will take some work and compromise.

Too bad the Dem Triumvirate ruled the roost and there was no work and no compromise to pass the ACA. Convenient you forgot that.

See, you never stop, I swear you must have some kind of syndrome or something.

I didn't say or imply that healthcare costs were collateral damage from the ACA.

Demand was raised as a result of the ACA, that is all I was saying, and that will drive the prices up to some degree.

Oh, and I already know what you think of me, you display that all of the time.

ok, given that explanation, and admitting my myopia in viewing what you were framing, a question: I can see the ACA leading to demand for certain services far more than others, due to the demographic curve of the enrollees. I wonder if there is a correlation between the nature of services in higher demand and which services saw the most cost rises. I don't know the answer. Do you?


I guess my view was that cost increases considerably greater than the rate of inflation, across most sectors of the medical delivery chain, have been in effect for far longer than the ACA, and from what little I've been aware of over the past 4 years, I am seeing no outlandish price jump beyond what it had been. In a handful of examples, actually a bit less rate of increase. I figure I'm in the core demographic of enrollees, middle age under Medicare eligible.

No I don’t know the answer, but I think the ACA is benefiting from two things in respect to price inflation.

1. The system was nearing total meltdown and there was no way the rate of inflation was sustainable, without some serious breakdowns. In other words…things were going to taper off anyway.
2. On the insurance side…the influx of new customers is tempering any large increases, but unfortunately a large number of people signing up are those with pent up demand.

It really is too early to make any real determinations, only time will tell.

fair enough, Spidey. Congrats on helping keep this thread from the lockdown!

callmeslick wrote:

I guess my view was that cost increases considerably greater than the rate of inflation, across most sectors of the medical delivery chain, have been in effect for far longer than the ACA, and from what little I've been aware of over the past 4 years, I am seeing no outlandish price jump beyond what it had been. In a handful of examples, actually a bit less rate of increase. I figure I'm in the core demographic of enrollees, middle age under Medicare eligible.

Don't know where you get your once again vaporous info but:

Health insurance premiums have increased faster than wages and inflation in recent years, rising an average of 28 percent from 2009 to 2014 despite the enactment of Obamacare, according to a report from Freedom Partners.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03 ... tcmp=hpbt3

now, go back and find the rate of increase between 1995 and 2009

you note that the increase was around 28%(oooh, scary sounding), over a 6 year period(4.5% per year....hmmm, not so scary). For years, those increases were pushing 10% ANNUALLY. Thus, I was exactly correct.

Post a link or it ain't true.

Average annual healthcare spending increase per capita 1990-2009 = 5.3%

(I don't know if this is apples/apples to what the Fox News article presents)

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/av ... er-capita/

clipped from a longer FactCheck.org piece on the nonsense being pushed about Obamacare:

"The average annual family-plan premium went up 3 percent from 2013 to 2014, according to the latest annual employer survey from the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust.

As the press release on the survey says: “Premiums increased more slowly over the past five years than the preceding five years (26 percent vs. 34 percent) and well below the annual double-digit increases recorded in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This year’s increase also is similar to the year-to-year rise in worker’s wages (2.3 percent) and general inflation (2 percent).”

Yeah, well hold onto your hats or should I say wallets:

-On July 3, 2015, the NY Times reported "Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

The question is how much do the feds think they can scale the prospective increases back.

And there is another facet to the mirror'd globe over the dance floor. The big question is how much did the wages increase over the time periods being compared?

Under the ACA span we have:

According to the report, while premiums increased by 28 percent from 2009 to 2014, wages increased by only 7.8 percent. From 2004 to 2009 when premiums increased by 30 percent, wages increased by only 12.2 percent.

And if you think ACA is gods gift to the masses:

In the video, Chelsea Clinton tells a crowd that her mother, Hillary Clinton, is open to using executive action to reduce "crushing costs" of Obamacare.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001707

woodchip wrote:Yeah, well hold onto your hats or should I say wallets:

-On July 3, 2015, the NY Times reported "Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

The question is how much do the feds think they can scale the prospective increases back.

under the ACA, the Feds have the final say. I note, with amusement, how fast you backed away from the 'ACA caused huge increases' to the standard,'just you wait, this is going to be a disaster' tack which has been shown to be a steaming pile of BS every time you've tried it over the past 5 years. Attaboy!

by the way, note your story was from July of last year, yet the prices did not go up by 20-40% for this current year. Did that occur to you?

If you can't refute them with reason, dazzle them with bull★■◆●.

callmeslick wrote:
under the ACA, the Feds have the final say. I note, with amusement, how fast you backed away from the 'ACA caused huge increases' to the standard,'just you wait, this is going to be a disaster' tack which has been shown to be a steaming pile of BS every time you've tried it over the past 5 years. Attaboy!

by the way, note your story was from July of last year, yet the prices did not go up by 20-40% for this current year. Did that occur to you?

Steaming pile? From the Kaiser Report average increase was 10.1% over 2015. Does 10% increase in one year strike you as tho the ACA was beneficial when pay increase and inflation does not match. Go ahead...keep being a rah rah boy for a plan that is going to bankrupt people.

http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet ... ketplaces/

it may not have been 'beneficial' but it surely wasn't out of line with the historic trends, and during the ACA the overall increases were at a lower rate than the average of the previous 10 years. Keep swinging, woody.