Vegas Free-for-All - Obamacare & The Supreme Court

Obamacare & The Supreme Court - Round 2

alanleroy

Jun 20, 2015
1:57am

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
I'm still wondering where that 250 dollar per family savings is going to kick in..OH, also, when is the ACA going to start paying for itself again? It's been a fiasco from start to present day, and it's gonna get worse.

Good points.

Except for it's saving families far more than $250, is more than paying for itself, and is working well, even better than its advocates predicted.

I'm not sure what these charts are really telling us. Two charts projecting healthcare costs from 2011 - 2020 are presented. One was a projection from 2010 the other from 2015. The 2015 projection includes Actuals from 2011 - 2014. So our newly projected costs (with some actuals) for federal spending on healthcare have decreased.

The linked article indicates two causes for this. The first (and major cause) is that healthcare costs have risen at a much slower rate than years prior. However there is no general agreement on the real cause of this slowed rate. In fact Healthcare costs had slow significantly between 2009 and 2013 before the major provisions of the ACA were implemented. Many attribute this to the impacts of the Great Recession rather than Healthcare reform.

The second indicated reason for projections being short is participation levels are not what were expected. They did not anticipate 22 states not participating in Medicare expansion and also Signups in the insurance marketplaces are slightly less than expected.

So it's just possible that 2010 forecasts were wrong because assumptions about costs and participation were wrong not because the ACA actually produced meaningful costs savings in excess of predictions. Possible.

The other cost that I have never seen stated or included in ACA Cost estimates are the substantial costs of implementing new systems to capture information required for ACA reporting. Every business over 50 employees must start producing new forms FOR EACH EMPLOYEE that will be filed with the IRS. This requirement begins this year. How much will it cost business to produce these new forms (like a W2 for Healthcare)? How much will it cost the IRS to process this information? It's a hidden cost of Healthcare Reform.

If the truth be known, the politicians were never really interested in cutting Medical Costs. I say that because nothing was done to address the obscene End of Life Costs perpetuated by our Healthcare system. That's when you spend your last 2 months unconscious or in pain kept alive by breathing machines or other medical devices in an ICU. That's where you steal an unnecessary few hundred thousand from your grandkids because you didn't have the decency to do a living will and DNR order.

I know the pat answer to this is blah blah blah Death Panels or blah blah blah end of life counseling. That's no excuse to ignore the biggest single cost driver of our medical system. Just give people big discounts (30 -40%) on their premiums to sign a DNR. Then we focus our resources on healing the sick not extending life in misery for 30 days.

pjstroh

Jun 20, 2015
5:58am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy

If the truth be known, the politicians were never really interested in cutting Medical Costs. I say that because nothing was done to address the obscene End of Life Costs perpetuated by our Healthcare system. That's when you spend your last 2 months unconscious or in pain kept alive by breathing machines or other medical devices in an ICU. That's where you steal an unnecessary few hundred thousand from your grandkids because you didn't have the decency to do a living will and DNR order.

I know the pat answer to this is blah blah blah Death Panels or blah blah blah end of life counseling. That's no excuse to ignore the biggest single cost driver of our medical system. Just give people big discounts (30 -40%) on their premiums to sign a DNR. Then we focus our resources on healing the sick not extending life in misery for 30 days.

Medicare now covers end-of-life planning thanks to Obamacare

When AlanLeroy says "politicians" were never interested in addressing end-of-life care, he means "Republicans". There were even more aggressive end-of-life provisions in the original bill constructed by Democrats....but those provisions were removed after a massive propaganda campaign from the same people who gave us the president's Kenyan birth certificate scandal.

ALanLeroy's constant complaint for the past 6 years has been Republicans did not have enough say in the new healthcare law....but by the point he makes in his last post its very clear that (if anything) Republicans had too much influence...and, as usual, their influence is destructive. We would have been better off if Democrats ignored the "death panel" propaganda from the birthers and pushed through the original bill in its original form. I agree whole-heartedly, Alan, even if that meant listening to you complain even more about your myth of Republicans being stiff-armed out of the process.

Of course those provisions would have added more pages to the bill too - and we know how much ALanleroy hates that. Probably more complaining. But it would have been worth it.

Boilerman

Jun 20, 2015
6:51am

Block User

How about Americans plan for their own "end of life care"? I understand that Americans being responsible for themselves is a cray concept to Liberals, yet it's not to some of us. My parents taught me to do be self sufficient, and I've taught my kids to be so also.

A populace waiting for help is certain to go bankrupt.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy

If the truth be known, the politicians were never really interested in cutting Medical Costs. I say that because nothing was done to address the obscene End of Life Costs perpetuated by our Healthcare system. That's when you spend your last 2 months unconscious or in pain kept alive by breathing machines or other medical devices in an ICU. That's where you steal an unnecessary few hundred thousand from your grandkids because you didn't have the decency to do a living will and DNR order.

I know the pat answer to this is blah blah blah Death Panels or blah blah blah end of life counseling. That's no excuse to ignore the biggest single cost driver of our medical system. Just give people big discounts (30 -40%) on their premiums to sign a DNR. Then we focus our resources on healing the sick not extending life in misery for 30 days.

jphelan

Jun 20, 2015
12:50pm

Block User

So why did the Democrats need to "change" the legislation for "Republicans" if no Republicans actually voted for the bill and very few politicians actually read it?

alanleroy

Jun 21, 2015
1:19am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Medicare now covers end-of-life planning thanks to Obamacare

When AlanLeroy says "politicians" were never interested in addressing end-of-life care, he means "Republicans". There were even more aggressive end-of-life provisions in the original bill constructed by Democrats....but those provisions were removed after a massive propaganda campaign from the same people who gave us the president's Kenyan birth certificate scandal.

ALanLeroy's constant complaint for the past 6 years has been Republicans did not have enough say in the new healthcare law....but by the point he makes in his last post its very clear that (if anything) Republicans had too much influence...and, as usual, their influence is destructive. We would have been better off if Democrats ignored the "death panel" propaganda from the birthers and pushed through the original bill in its original form. I agree whole-heartedly, Alan, even if that meant listening to you complain even more about your myth of Republicans being stiff-armed out of the process.

Of course those provisions would have added more pages to the bill too - and we know how much ALanleroy hates that. Probably more complaining. But it would have been worth it.

1. What were those 'more aggressive' end-of-life provisions that they really wanted but could not get past the Republicans who did not vote for it anyway? How much would they have saved? Were they major financial incentives to encourage individuals to make better end of life decisions like I suggested....Or something else?

2. I complain that Obamacare was passed and signed into law with no Republican Votes. That makes it one of the most divisive major pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. We're obviously still arguing about it 6 years later. The law has NEVER had the majority support of the American People. That's no way to run a country in my opinion. Instead of finding a consensus and addressing the major issues, this law has been a wedge.

3. We would be far better off had the ACA dealt with just a handful of key issues that were debated in public and achieved a national consensus. Like...pre-existing conditions, end-of-life costs, insuring the uninsured and even single payer. It didn't have to be a 2000 page law that nobody read. It could have been concise, focused and dealt with the most important problems impacting healthcare costs. Instead it was bloated and heavily lobbied by AMA, Big Pharma and Insurance companies. And according to PJ stealthfully written by Republicans who did not vote for it. And yeah...it did not address end of life costs...the largest single cost of our system. Anything called 'Affordable Care Act' that does not directly address the biggest cost driver of healthcare costs is absurd.

PJ whines that Republicans are responsible for the shortcomings of the ACA. Republicans who didn't vote for the ACA. Fact is there was a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President. Fact is the Majority of the People did not support the ACA and still do not. Fact is that it would have been far better to focus on a the most important issues and really fix them in a way that most reasonable people can agree.

But let's not confuse PJ with the facts. That's not the way it works now in Washington. And because of the way they pushed through the ACA, the Democrats have paid a price ever since. They own it and neither side can fix it without the cooperation of the other....and that cooperation is sorely lacking in our nation's capital. It will be especially important should the Supreme Court overrule the subsidies for the federal exchange. It will be interesting to see who 'owns' it then.

pjstroh

Jun 21, 2015
5:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy

1. What were those 'more aggressive' end-of-life provisions that they really wanted but could not get past the Republicans who did not vote for it anyway? How much would they have saved? Were they major financial incentives to encourage individuals to make better end of life decisions like I suggested....Or something else?

2. I complain that Obamacare was passed and signed into law with no Republican Votes. That makes it one of the most divisive major pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. We're obviously still arguing about it 6 years later. The law has NEVER had the majority support of the American People. That's no way to run a country in my opinion. Instead of finding a consensus and addressing the major issues, this law has been a wedge.

3. We would be far better off had the ACA dealt with just a handful of key issues that were debated in public and achieved a national consensus. Like...pre-existing conditions, end-of-life costs, insuring the uninsured and even single payer. It didn't have to be a 2000 page law that nobody read. It could have been concise, focused and dealt with the most important problems impacting healthcare costs. Instead it was bloated and heavily lobbied by AMA, Big Pharma and Insurance companies. And according to PJ stealthfully written by Republicans who did not vote for it. And yeah...it did not address end of life costs...the largest single cost of our system. Anything called 'Affordable Care Act' that does not directly address the biggest cost driver of healthcare costs is absurd.

PJ whines that Republicans are responsible for the shortcomings of the ACA. Republicans who didn't vote for the ACA. Fact is there was a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President. Fact is the Majority of the People did not support the ACA and still do not. Fact is that it would have been far better to focus on a the most important issues and really fix them in a way that most reasonable people can agree.

But let's not confuse PJ with the facts. That's not the way it works now in Washington. And because of the way they pushed through the ACA, the Democrats have paid a price ever since. They own it and neither side can fix it without the cooperation of the other....and that cooperation is sorely lacking in our nation's capital. It will be especially important should the Supreme Court overrule the subsidies for the federal exchange. It will be interesting to see who 'owns' it then.

If your complaint is Democrats are pussies for caving into hyperbolic rhetoric from the right then I agree. But that's not your complaint. For 6 years you've complained Democrats didn't reach out aggressively enough to people who equate end of life care with "death panels".... even as you demand more aggressive end of life care from the law that was passed. I understand you don't see the ridiculous nature of that contrary position. Thats par for the course for you.

The law provides end of life planning. AlanLeroy says it doesn't...and nobody in Washington is interested in doing so. I posted the article that proves AlanLeroy wrong. But just like when he's presented with other facts, statistics, and provisions in the law he continues his temper tantrum anyway. Because thats what AlanLeroy does when someone points out how full of it he is.

Measuring the cost-savings of end-of-life planning is not easy. Even when the service is free not everyone participates in it....and cost savings from this planning cant be measured until it is enacted - which might be next week for some people, or ten years from now for others. But you would have to be a real idiot to claim end-of-planning doesn't save tax payers money - and you would have to be a massive idiot to equate it with death panels. So I'm glad Democrats passed the provision - even if they don't get credit from uninformed people like ALanLeroy who prefer non-partisan-FOX-News talking points compared to the actual text of the law.

alanleroy

Jun 22, 2015
12:17pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

If your complaint is Democrats are pussies for caving into hyperbolic rhetoric from the right then I agree. But that's not your complaint. For 6 years you've complained Democrats didn't reach out aggressively enough to people who equate end of life care with "death panels".... even as you demand more aggressive end of life care from the law that was passed. I understand you don't see the ridiculous nature of that contrary position. Thats par for the course for you.

The law provides end of life planning. AlanLeroy says it doesn't...and nobody in Washington is interested in doing so. I posted the article that proves AlanLeroy wrong. But just like when he's presented with other facts, statistics, and provisions in the law he continues his temper tantrum anyway. Because thats what AlanLeroy does when someone points out how full of it he is.

Measuring the cost-savings of end-of-life planning is not easy. Even when the service is free not everyone participates in it....and cost savings from this planning cant be measured until it is enacted - which might be next week for some people, or ten years from now for others. But you would have to be a real idiot to claim end-of-planning doesn't save tax payers money - and you would have to be a massive idiot to equate it with death panels. So I'm glad Democrats passed the provision - even if they don't get credit from uninformed people like ALanLeroy who prefer non-partisan-FOX-News talking points compared to the actual text of the law.

Did I mention how predictable PJ is?

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
I know the pat answer to this is blah blah blah Death Panels or blah blah blah end of life counseling. That's no excuse to ignore the biggest single cost driver of our medical system. Just give people big discounts (30 -40%) on their premiums to sign a DNR. Then we focus our resources on healing the sick not extending life in misery for 30 days.

Yeah... I guess I did.

Boilerman

Jun 23, 2015
1:33am

Block User

When one party controls the House, Senate, and Presidency, they have the right and the power to vote on legislation even if they haven't read it.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy

1. What were those 'more aggressive' end-of-life provisions that they really wanted but could not get past the Republicans who did not vote for it anyway? How much would they have saved? Were they major financial incentives to encourage individuals to make better end of life decisions like I suggested....Or something else?

2. I complain that Obamacare was passed and signed into law with no Republican Votes. That makes it one of the most divisive major pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. We're obviously still arguing about it 6 years later. The law has NEVER had the majority support of the American People. That's no way to run a country in my opinion. Instead of finding a consensus and addressing the major issues, this law has been a wedge.

3. We would be far better off had the ACA dealt with just a handful of key issues that were debated in public and achieved a national consensus. Like...pre-existing conditions, end-of-life costs, insuring the uninsured and even single payer. It didn't have to be a 2000 page law that nobody read. It could have been concise, focused and dealt with the most important problems impacting healthcare costs. Instead it was bloated and heavily lobbied by AMA, Big Pharma and Insurance companies. And according to PJ stealthfully written by Republicans who did not vote for it. And yeah...it did not address end of life costs...the largest single cost of our system. Anything called 'Affordable Care Act' that does not directly address the biggest cost driver of healthcare costs is absurd.

PJ whines that Republicans are responsible for the shortcomings of the ACA. Republicans who didn't vote for the ACA. Fact is there was a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President. Fact is the Majority of the People did not support the ACA and still do not. Fact is that it would have been far better to focus on a the most important issues and really fix them in a way that most reasonable people can agree.

But let's not confuse PJ with the facts. That's not the way it works now in Washington. And because of the way they pushed through the ACA, the Democrats have paid a price ever since. They own it and neither side can fix it without the cooperation of the other....and that cooperation is sorely lacking in our nation's capital. It will be especially important should the Supreme Court overrule the subsidies for the federal exchange. It will be interesting to see who 'owns' it then.

Don

Jun 23, 2015
2:00am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Did I mention how predictable PJ is?

Yeah... I guess I did.

DonDiego predicts this is not the last time alanleroy will inform the reader how predictable pjstroh is.

pjstroh

Jun 23, 2015
2:23am

Block User

I'm predictably accurate when referencing the contents of the ACA. And I'm equally predictable of pointing out Alan's false information on any topic.

«‹8 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now