|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Obamacare is Burying America|
Obamacare is Burying America
Posted - 1/31/2014 11:39:41 AM | show profile | flag this post
Apparently in lots of dollar bills. The Health and Human Services Department reports millions of dollars in savings due to Obamacare already:
"Early data from the first year of Accountable Care Organizations indicates upward of $380 million in savings, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports."
Posted - 2/4/2014 5:43:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
There is no data in that article. It's three grafs of nothing,
There is no information regarding:
names of any specific companies (which could be checked)
profits made (which would indicate the companies success)
savings that were gained (which would indicate, well that there WERE savings)
More specific info is needed. Hell, the savings might be because people were KICKED OFF the plans. Or dropped them because they couldn't afford them. There is no CONTEXT.
Posted - 2/4/2014 9:05:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
From the article:
"The Affordable Care Act created and funded ACOs in an attempt to improve quality of care and reduce costs, and 54 of 114 ACOs had lower year-one expenditures than expected, CMS says. ACOs provide coordinated care for Medicare beneficiaries, bringing together primary-care physicians, specialists, and hospitals to work together to ensure treatment is consistent and to prevent duplication of services.
" ... The Health and Human Services Department, which houses CMS, said it would release final numbers from the program's first year in the coming months."
So hold your britches on, and you'll get your details about this particular facet of the Affordable Care Act that's intended to cut down on Medicare fraud and abuse.
Posted - 2/4/2014 9:12:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
It was not an in-depth article.
It was not meant to be an in-depth article.
We always thought beenthere that you never took the word of just one piece, you always liked to 'dig deeper' as they say.
All you had to do (like I did) was cut/copy/google "Accountable Care Organizations". Among the many pieces I found was "CMS Data Show Mixed Results From Medicare ACO Programs"
Enough data and sources in there to bore the crap out of anyone. Methinks you should practice what you preach.
Posted - 2/5/2014 8:56:16 AM | show profile | flag this post
Or just read the CBO report...
which says the ACA will be cheaper than expected, will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health care and will turn a profit for the U.S. Treasury.
Oh, and beenthere, if you don't trust real journalists to do their jobs -- this particular journalist included a link to the source material -- so you don't have to spend 30 seconds Googling it:
Posted - 2/5/2014 10:36:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
And now for the facts
some of which are reported by the left-leaning and normally Obama-friendly Washington Post:
The Congressional Budget Office reports the impending loss of 2.3 million full time job equivalents and the addition of $1 TRILLION to the deficit...which will certainly be added to the national debt that currently stands at $17.6 TRILLION...as a direct result of Obamacare.
Posted - 2/5/2014 11:19:34 AM | show profile | flag this post
Except that it isn't.
Other than that the facts are egregious, though cruiser's interpretation is incorrect. Indubitably.
I will not post anymore about this.
Posted - 2/5/2014 12:04:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
Cruzo comes back...
parroting GOP talking points.
What he failed to mention about those 2.4 million jobs is that the CBO said they'd be the result of people being able to retire earlier or take part-time work to spend more time home with the kids.
In other words, those 2.4 million workers are ONLY working full-time jobs now because they had to have full time work to qualify for health insurance.
The ACA is freeing them up to retire when they had planned or be stay at home moms (or dads) because they now have access to health insurance.
Posted - 2/5/2014 12:15:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
Only to a tried and true liberal
Is more people working less a good thing. I guess high employment, with more people not working at all, is just damn wonderful. After all, if we just take more money from the greedy rich we could all quit work!
Can you believe some of us think that people need to work to meet their needs. Unthinkable!
Posted - 2/5/2014 12:54:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
"ACOs had lower year-one expenditures than expected"
This explains nothing. Maybe each of the ACOs closed a facility and outsourced customer service to India.
When it says, because of the ACOs new accounting policies, duplicate care, excess patient visits, lowered reimbursement rates for physicians, etc, expenditures were lower than expected. That is a REASON.
And of course GD is FIRST to post. She looooves to respond immediately.
MP, I was not commenting on other articles. ES posted a specific article as PROOF of something (that really isn't there) and I was commenting on the lack of information in THAT.
If you are criticizing my lack of research, perhaps that better pertains to ES instead, as he posted an article that HAD NO INFORMATION.
According to you, he should have posted better evidence to support his argument.
Posted - 2/5/2014 1:00:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
All these other posters taking you to task, and you home in the one who who didn't give you a personal smack -- ME?
You got a poster-crush on me? Honey-babe, I'm taken!
Posted - 2/5/2014 1:06:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
** And of course GD is FIRST to post. She looooves to respond immediately. ***
Oh, sweetie, one more thing: If you have a problem with my posting before the beginning or after the end of my workday -- instead of yours -- you'll need to learn to live with it.
Do you think you could do that? Do you think you could learn to understand that everything isn't about you? I think you could.
Posted - 2/5/2014 1:37:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
GD, I find your attention rather odd, and it is consistently true that if I post, YOU respond first. Always. (You just did, yet AGAIN. Even fell all over yourself to post twice. Your insults, snark and name calling is tedious and ridiculous.)
And no I wasn't "taken to task." I pointed out that the OP's link did not support well, anything. It is a non-article. With no facts in it that support ANY position.
Did the ACOs save money?
Did they cost more?
I don't know.
Nothing in that article supports an argument FOR OR AGAINST the statement. I did NOT say that ACOs did NOT save money. I said that there is nothing in the article that SUPPORTS that.
But I understand you don't recognize what a fact is. Or how to support one logically. Or how to read for accurate comprehension.
Posted - 2/5/2014 2:40:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
the CBO report stresses that this will not affect unemployment, instead it is "a net decline in the amount of labor that workers CHOOSE TO SUPPLY, rather than...a net drop in BUSSINESSES' DEMAND for labor." [Emphasis added].
That means a zero effect on unemployment.
And yes, it IS a good thing if people can retire when they had planned, or mothers who only wanted to work part-time, but had to take a full time job to qualify for health insurance can stick with their plans.
I still don't understand the right's demands that people NOT be allowed to retire. That's the impression I get when the right goes all ballastic over the participation rate in the labor force dropping because baby boomers are choosing to retire.
Posted - 2/5/2014 3:38:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Allowed to reitire???"
I encourage everyone to retire as soon as they can afford it. I think it would be great if everyone could afford to retire when they wanted. As long as they can afford it of course. But expecting taxpayers to pick up the costs so people can retire early is wrong, especially in a time when we are deep in debt as a nation.
Posted - 2/5/2014 4:40:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'
obamatax/care was to have no effect on employer based insurance. a lie spoken by troo-beleevers. the cbo is predicting millions who liked their employer based insurance, will lose it.
dear leader said in 2009 there was 30 million people without insurance. by 2024 there will be 31 million without insurance.
see!!! obamacare is a resounding success!!!!! no need to read it before we passed it!!!!
indubitably democrats will run on obamatax/care. republicans are headed for a egregious defeat come november!
Posted - 2/5/2014 7:12:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
And that's what the CBO...
is saying, blacked.
Allow people to retire when they can afford it. Not taking a handout, but BUYING private health insurance out of their own pocket.
But giving he option of buying health insurance until they can opt for Medicare -- which they already paid for. That's something those people did not have an option of doing before the ACA.
They had to stick with an employer's policy -- or go without insurance.
But, keep insisting that people work until they drop dead. That seems to be the GOP party line these days, blacked.
Posted - 2/5/2014 8:22:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
you don't have to be a liberal to understand and appreciate what I'm talking about.
Rep. Paul Ryan backed it up in a Congressional hearing today: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-gop-job-losses
Posted - 2/5/2014 8:41:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
No they cannot afford it
Without government assistance to purchase insurance.
Of course one has to wonder if you feel the same about companies forcing employeesto go part time to avoid paying for health insurance. Oh wait you are all for that, let's just call it early retirement.
Posted - 2/5/2014 9:22:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruise, the article you cited
Makes no mention of "addition of $1 TRILLION to the deficit" now does it?? It DOES say though "The CBO predicts that the economy will have the equivalent of 2.3 million fewer full-time workers by 2021 as a result of the law...After obtaining coverage under the health-care law, some workers will choose to forgo employment, the report said, while others will voluntarily reduce their hours...."
AFTER they get coverage--and "will choose" and "voluntarily". Why can't you people read? Is it 'cheaper' to quit work than pay the 'ObamaCare Penalty'??? Well of course not. The fee for not having insurance in 2014 is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child or 1% of your taxable income (up to $285 for a family), whichever is greater.
The article also says: "the CBO said, 86 percent of American citizens and legal residents younger than 65 will have health insurance this year, up from 82 percent in 2013. And that figure is expected to continue rising, topping out at 92 percent in 2017"
Insuring Americans was always the goal of ObamaCare. So apparently it's working.
PS to blackedtape: "Only to a tried and true liberal Is more people working less a good thing" Sir; etaoin never said anything like that. BUT what we have seen for the past six years is happy gleeful joyous celebrations on the part of Republicans every time there is bad economic news.
We've seen it countless times. Even a small improvement in the unemployment figures--or massive improvments in Wall St figures--or massive improvements in the energy field--or even great strides in the war on terror--etc etc--ALL OF IT--If it's good for the Country, then it might be good for the WH...THEREFORE downgrade it, ridicule it, belittle it, and warn of doom and gloom.
Used to be even the 'Loyal Opposition' would support policies and programs that were [in essence] good for the country, and even join in the celebration of those successes. Not any more. Now? 'If it might make Obama look good?? We're against it.
Posted - 2/6/2014 3:57:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
*** GD, I find your attention rather odd, and it is consistently true that if I post, YOU respond first. Always. (You just did, yet AGAIN. Even fell all over yourself to post twice. Your insults, snark and name calling is tedious and ridiculous.) ***
Insult, snark and name-calling in my first post in this thread?
There were no such things. Anyone who can read can see that.
But I'll call you a name now: TROLL. Happy?
Posted - 2/6/2014 4:22:11 AM | show profile | flag this post
P.S. I'm not about to cave to your desire that I wait for another post to show up after yours so that our posts don't touch. I'll post when it's convenient for ME.
Posted - 2/6/2014 11:46:40 AM | show profile | flag this post
I don't know of a single person who is happy about the current US economic situation. When people bring up the high unemployment numbers it is not with joy but anger instead. After 5 years in office some people still don't think the current administration is responsible for the economy. They say it is either Bush's fault or republicans but it certainly is not Obama's. And now the latest is the idea that people quitting full time jobs because they can afford health insurance is a good thing. Which is exactly what etaoin posted, no surprise there since that was exactly what the Obama administration had said earlier in the day.
The real truth is that no one knows what the true effects of Obamacare will be on the Country and we will not know for at least 10 more years. Everything right now is total speculation, even this CBO report was an educated guess. So when the administration, er etaoin, tells me how many million Obamacare will save over the next few years I just consider the source.
Posted - 2/6/2014 12:50:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
Blacked, you really don't get it...
I've been in that situation -- had to take a pay cut and give up free-lancing and pursuing an MBA -- so I could get health insurance through a full-time job. A complicated set of pre-existing conditions and pre-ACA laws and a now ex-wife all during a recession many years ago.
Or the case of a co-worker -- a combined household income in the six-figure range -- they were both freelancers, able to spend time with their 5-year old twins. She took a massive pay cut, again, for employer provided health insurance.
Hope you never have to make that choice -- but the ACA will make it easier for you to buy insurance on the free market if you do.
The people cited by the CBO (again, quit arguing with me and read THEIR report) cites people who don't want to work full time nor need to work full time to afford their retirement, to further training and education (while working only part time) or to pursue private business ventures of their own.
These are people who, when leaving full time jobs for retirement or part time work -- open up jobs for other people who are looking for work.
This is not something destroying jobs, but giving working Americans more freedom and flexibility.
Posted - 2/6/2014 1:10:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
You don't have to listen to me...
the CBO's Director says the report shows that the ACA will actually boost employment: