Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Freedom! Health Insurance, Costs, and More

Freedom! Health Insurance, Costs, and More
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2016, 10:58 PM
 
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 05:46 AM
 
Nine grand for a heart monitor seems excessive.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 06:35 AM
 
That's not so bad, my ankle alone was more than that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 07:37 AM
 
There's an ankle monitor joke in there somewhere.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 08:13 AM
 
Yeah, that looks a lot like the bills we get around here too.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 12:11 PM
 
Next time research the most cost effective services in your area before having an emergency. On the bright side, having outed their cost, they will soon drop their prices when competing hospitals undercut their prices.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 07:13 PM
 
Wheres this from? is this one of your bills or something from the web?

As someone who has one of the serious disabilities requiring frequent complex procedures, my advice (which many of us do), is to call the insurance company a couple weeks before the procedure and get the EXACT bill codes for the procedure. All insurance has pre-negotiated price lists for every possible procedure. There literally is a menu for your health and medical services which is almost exactly the same from one hospital to the next. WE the public dont have access to this... Next, visit the hospital's billing department the next day and compare the bill codes the insurance chooses to the bill codes the hospital chooses, they should be using the insurance codes, but they wont be. Haggle and argue with them. In most case they are trying to scam the insurance company (ultimately you) by using bill codes for similar pricier procedures. They might call a 20 minute "scope of the stomach" a "general stomach surgery". If they use a band aid/bandage they will charge for the whole box not just 1. So ask for the box. If they give an aspirin or other pill again they charge for the whole package.

There are a lot of little scams they use to run up the bill simply because a middle man is managing the payment rather than the free market forces that would exist with natural customer negotiation. Most people dont question the bill due to the illusion that if the insurance is paying most of it so it must be a deal.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 10:55 AM
 
horrific.

Still better than that socalised medicine we have to put up with over here in UKland.

Comrade.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 01:05 PM
 
Almost $34,000 on pharmaceuticals. I wonder how many 8-balls that works out to.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 02:52 PM
 
My doctor recently prescribed me some unusual antibiotics for a GI issue. The pharmacy told me the insurance refused to cover it, recommending a more common antibiotic (used for ear infections) or my doctor would have to call them to give approval. Silly me, I thought the prescription was the doctor's approval? Without insurance, this RX was going to be $1600 for a two-week supply. Once the doctor jumped through the insurance hoop, it was free.

It makes me very worried about not having insurance, one prescription costing as much as a house payment.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 04:23 PM
 
When I got my pain meds prescription filled, after my broken ankle, a 120 count bottle of Percocet (non-generic) 10/325mg pills was $590.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
horrific.

Still better than that socalised medicine we have to put up with over here in UKland.

Comrade.
Speaking of UK.
Miracle cancer drug saves man given two weeks to live, However it will not be provided on the NHS because it costs too much

edit: Im confused. I thought these governments were great at just negotiating costs down in a way no one else could, so whats the problem?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 07:49 PM
 
What do these little individual stories tell us? There are so many of these that cast any health care system in any light. Are they supposed to prove that a particular system is perfect? Nobody would claim this.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2016, 05:45 AM
 


Most people have heard about that, and though I disagree with Oliver on many things, this isn't one of them. This is a huge issue.

So, what to do? Well, we've recently stopped giving $$ to several colleges, due to their crappy Social Justice and Gender Studies programs, which had left it unused... until last week. So we formed a debt acquisition company, specifically medical and funeral expense debt in the states of TN, GA, and NC (our "backyard"). So far we've been able to locate >$1.1B in debt (yeah, in less than a week) for the bargain basement price of $710k, and we're in the process of acquiring it. Why so cheap? Most of it is over a decade old and/or without clear liability. (ex. Children being harassed over a dead parent's medical and funeral costs.)

Are we just going to forgive it? No. We're also going to locate those people and inform them that it's been forgiven, provide notarized paperwork proving they no longer owe it (in case some dirtbags come along and illegally try to collect (which can happen)), and request that they show a complete stranger (of their choice) an act of kindness.

How can you also help? Glad you asked. If you have some spare cash and also want to help, go here and give a little. It helps those who need it most, if for no other reason than to stop harassment and provide peace of mind.

Have a great day.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Jun 8, 2016 at 05:57 AM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 09:33 AM
 
I might be missing something but how is this charity to the debtors since they never intended to pay it, and likely forgot about it? Isn't it more a charity to the people who got the 700k?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 09:57 AM
 
This made me just realize another scam the medical cartel is pulling on us. It explains so much... all the surgeries Im billed for that never happened, or other over priced procedures. They add things to the bill, they pad the bill, it's no big deal since they know it's unenforceable and many aren't going to pay it anyway. Then they sell it to collection people as if it actually has some value based on the fake overcharges. This debt selling thing is just another back end for the cartel to make money. Oh wow, I learn something new every month!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I might be missing something but how is this charity to the debtors since they never intended to pay it, and likely forgot about it? Isn't it more a charity to the people who got the 700k?
They don't forget about it for long, once the more predatory collectors come after them. As I understand it, and have seen firsthand, the harassment is on a whole `nother level. Even to the point they come after other family members, your neighbors, your employer, calling and stalking them at all hours, essentially making their lives a living hell, in the hope that it will shame you into giving the debt collector $. Of course that's illegal but the process of filing charges against these guys and/or suing them is very difficult. Watch the video above.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2016, 07:37 PM
 
Speaking of immoral debt collecting tactics it turns out agencies who work for government debt collection use the worst most aggressive tactics and it's all legal. Liberals probably love this...

" In an industry already known for bad behavior, debt collectors that work for government agencies usually don’t have to work within the confines of consumer protection laws – opening the door for higher fees and even more aggressive tactics."

The secret world of government debt collection
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2016, 06:50 AM
 
Government debt collectors are absolutely the worst.

I started to notice some glaring issues with debt collectors a couple years back. One started chasing me for about £140 or so. I called them up and asked them what it was for and they said it was from unpaid car insurance bills. I asked them for proof of the debt, a contract, a payment schedule showing how much I had paid and the outstanding, etc. The girl got very confused about this. Kept telling me my address and the details of my car. I kept reiterating that that didn't prove I owed an insurance company any money. She really didn't get it. There is a huge amount of debt going around that would be utterly impossible to validate in court. If you arrange certain things online or over the phone there is no paper trail at unless these companies logged your IP address against you clicking a yes button or saved the recording of your phone call for five years. Most of them couldn't find a signed contract after that long if they had one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:52 PM
 
Wasn't ObamaCare supposed to make it all cheaper?

Any of you pro-ACAers (including OP) care to admit you're wrong now, or should we go back and take a look and the ObamaCare threads and compare to the reality of today?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Wasn't ObamaCare supposed to make it all cheaper?

Any of you pro-ACAers (including OP) care to admit you're wrong now, or should we go back and take a look and the ObamaCare threads and compare to the reality of today?
Actually no it wasn't. Obamacare was about expanding coverage. The only cost benefits that were touted by the ACA was "bending the cost curve" of future heath care cost inflation. Which is by no means making things cheaper. It's more like slowing down how fast things continue to get more expensive.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:22 PM
 
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:43 PM
 
Given the graph above you either don't understand the concept of reducing the growth in healthcare costs or you are just pretending not to in order to be contentious for its own sake.

The per capita cost of health care expenditures in 2012 was $8,915, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It was $8,170 in 2009, $8,411 in 2010 and $8,658 in 2011. In other words, it’s rising year after year.



However, when broken down by the percentage increase, it is also clear that the growth in the per capita cost of health care has dramatically slowed in recent years.



The slowing started before the implementation of the health care law and has remained steady at just under 3 percent in each of the last four years. It was growing much more quickly — at a rate of more than 6 percent a year on average — in the eight years prior to that. In fact, the per capita cost of health care is now growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. The question then is: How much is the ACA responsible for that slowing? On that point, there is much speculation and debate.
ACA Impact on Per Capita Cost of Health Care | FactCheck.org

If you are going to disagree at least do it on the basis of something that was actually claimed. Which would be the point outlined by the second graph.

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Actually no it wasn't. Obamacare was about expanding coverage. The only cost benefits that were touted by the ACA was "bending the cost curve" of future heath care cost inflation. Which is by no means making things cheaper. It's more like slowing down how fast things continue to get more expensive.

OAW
Absolute & Utter bullshit, OAW.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/r...th-care-reform

"In keeping with the President’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving over $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care and making investments to fund research into what works."

Which part of "reduces health care costs" means "reduces the cost curves but doesn't actually reduce costs?"
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:25 PM
 
OAW,

You even quoted as much as recently as 2014: Are you full of shit now or were you full of shit then? Or are you going to try to twist the words you quoted then saying "improving quality and lowering costs to mean something else now that you've been all but proven wrong? It was the title header of your quote.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...efine-success/

Originally Posted by OAW
Feb 6, 2014, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Snow-i
Can you name one good thing the ACA has done so far? I mean for christ's sakes man they haven't even built the damn backend to the website yet!
How about this?
How about this?
IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS
Providing Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credits. Up to 4 million small businesses are eligible for tax credits to help them provide insurance benefits to their workers. The first phase of this provision provides a credit worth up to 35% of the employer’s contribution to the employees’ health insurance. Small non-profit organizations may receive up to a 25% credit. Effective now.
Offering Relief for 4 Million Seniors Who Hit the Medicare Prescription Drug “Donut Hole.” An estimated four million seniors will reach the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the “donut hole” this year. Each eligible senior will receive a one-time, tax free $250 rebate check. First checks mailed in June, 2010, and will continue monthly throughout 2010 as seniors hit the coverage gap.
Providing Free Preventive Care. All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.
Preventing Disease and Illness. A new $15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund will invest in proven prevention and public health programs that can help keep Americans healthy – from smoking cessation to combating obesity. Funding begins in 2010.
Cracking Down on Health Care Fraud. Current efforts to fight fraud have returned more than $2.5 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund in fiscal year 2009 alone. The new law invests new resources and requires new screening procedures for health care providers to boost these efforts and reduce fraud and waste in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Many provisions effective now.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Absolute & Utter bullshit, OAW.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/r...th-care-reform

"In keeping with the President’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving over $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care and making investments to fund research into what works."
You have to look at such things in context. That page is entitled "Deficit-Reducing Health Care Reform". So the part you highlighted in bold is in the context of what I highlighted in italics. IOW that part is talking about reducing healthcare costs that the government incurs. Not healthcare costs in general.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which part of "reduces health care costs" means "reduces the cost curves but doesn't actually reduce costs?"
The part that's just a few paragraphs down on the page you just cited. Where the part you stated was reiterated almost verbatim with this additional context.

Bending the growth curve of health care spending: In keeping with President Obama’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving more than $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care, making investments to fund research into what works, and cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You have to look at such things in context. That page is entitled "Deficit-Reducing Health Care Reform". So the part you highlighted in bold is in the context of what I highlighted in italics. IOW that part is talking about reducing healthcare costs that the government incurs. Not healthcare costs in general.
There's no amount of context that will make the statement "reduces healthcare costs" mean "doesn't reduce healthcare costs".

Obama even said, right after his infamous "if you like it you can keep it" lie:

"• President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

I guess he must have muttered the "context" you speak of under his breath.

The part that's just a few paragraphs down on the page you just cited. Where the part you stated was reiterated almost verbatim with this additional context.
"Reduces healthcare costs" means the opposite of "reduces healthcare costs" because....context? Right.

This is such a stretch I'm sure your pants must have split by now.

How could the government costs of healthcare fall if the costs of healthcare in general are rising, while we're subsidizing even more of the market than ever before? It doesn't make sense, you were sold a bridge, and now you still defend that sale as something other than what it is - another failed government program that's costing the taxpayers billions upon billions. I'm not so sure this failure wasn't part of the plan, since Obama has always been more about following the political winds than actual progress. By now you know that the ACA's architects have even said as much, yet here you are, loyal beyond a fault to an idea that never had a practical chance in hell in the first place.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I guess he must have muttered the "context" you speak of under his breath.
Not at all. Again it's right there on the page you cited. Remember this is what you said ...

Which part of "reduces health care costs" means "reduces the cost curves but doesn't actually reduce costs?"
To which I simply referenced your own source where it said ...

Bending the growth curve of health care spending: In keeping with President Obama’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving more than $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care, making investments to fund research into what works, and cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
Now I can't make you accept what's right there in black and white. I can only point out that it does, in fact, exist.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is such a stretch I'm sure your pants must have split by now.

How could the government costs of healthcare fall if the costs of healthcare in general are rising, while we're subsidizing even more of the market than ever before? It doesn't make sense, you were sold a bridge, and now you still defend that sale as something other than what it is - another failed government program that's costing the taxpayers billions upon billions. I'm not so sure this failure wasn't part of the plan, since Obama has always been more about following the political winds than actual progress. By now you know that the ACA's architects have even said as much, yet here you are, loyal beyond a fault to an idea that never had a practical chance in hell in the first place.
"Failure" is in the eye of the beholder. This entire tangent was started based upon your misunderstanding of the primary objective of the ACA. And as I indicated earlier that was expanding coverage. Which it has done without question. It's also projected to reduce the deficit over 10 years by the CBC. Time will tell if reality coincides with those projections. What we know now is that the growth in healthcare cost inflation is the lowest it's been in 50 years since the passage of the ACA. Now one can quibble about whether that is causation or correlation. But again, only time will tell. Regardless, taxpayers as a whole are going to pay for increased healthcare costs one way or another. The only question is how? Option A is to subsidize the uninsured resorting to the emergency room and its associated top dollar services with even higher private insurance premiums. Whereas Option B is to subsidize healthcare insurance for the uninsured via the tax code. Pick your poison. But the latter has been shown to be the less costly option by every other advanced nation that has tried it.

OAW
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 11:26 PM
 
I honestly don't know what you conservatives actually want when it comes to health care.

The only thing is clear to me is that you know what you don't want (the ACA), but you don't really know what you want. I mean, many of you have your own ideas, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, and nothing that I've heard sounds like it would take a big dent out of these massive costs. Maybe I'm just being impatient and/or a bad listener though...

You guys have been ornery about the ACA for years. We get it. You have a chance now to elect new leadership. Isn't now the time to be building a consensus and traction around some concrete ideas?

Without just bitching and moaning about the ACA (not because I feel compelled to defend it, but because this would be boring since we've been doing this for years), how about we see if we can discuss some ideas? I've heard some general philosophical frameworks such as allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines, but in addition to these frameworks I would also be interested in your ideas as to how this would reduce our costs significantly?
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I honestly don't know what you conservatives actually want when it comes to health care.
I think they want to be able to purchase healthcare the same way they purchase groceries, cloths, etc.

You decide what kind of quality and price product or service you want, and you pay for it yourself.

I work in the healthcare industry, so unfortunately get to see first hand what an enormous waste of time and money non-patient payer healthcare is.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 07:12 AM
 
Given some of the bills I've seen there is plenty of wasted time and money involved in patient-paid healthcare too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 10:24 AM
 
When ACA was 1st taking hold we saw the mega hospitals blooming in expansive construction. I thought to myself this is to accept all the new people who will be receiving healthcare now under the ACA. I was wrong. It was to absorb independent doctors and clinics by the hoards. How did the Mega hospitals foresee this? It was like it was planned. Now years later we see all the doctors shutting down and angrily moving under the umbrella of this mega corporations. Why would they be doing this?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I honestly don't know what you conservatives actually want when it comes to health care.

The only thing is clear to me is that you know what you don't want (the ACA), but you don't really know what you want. I mean, many of you have your own ideas, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, and nothing that I've heard sounds like it would take a big dent out of these massive costs. Maybe I'm just being impatient and/or a bad listener though...

You guys have been ornery about the ACA for years. We get it. You have a chance now to elect new leadership. Isn't now the time to be building a consensus and traction around some concrete ideas?

Without just bitching and moaning about the ACA (not because I feel compelled to defend it, but because this would be boring since we've been doing this for years), how about we see if we can discuss some ideas? I've heard some general philosophical frameworks such as allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines, but in addition to these frameworks I would also be interested in your ideas as to how this would reduce our costs significantly?
Its about HOW they passed the POS in the first place, and the Democrats shitty attitude at the time. The Affordable care act is BS anyway. MORE $ for LESS coverage. Laughable, that the number of uninsured has risen. The cost to consumers will go up even more next year. Deductibles are now unafordable to many. Adding in the overhead costs hasn't helped either. It was a poorly thought out mes and even those creating the ACA were laughing at how stupid the average voter was.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not at all. Again it's right there on the page you cited. Remember this is what you said ...



To which I simply referenced your own source where it said ...



Now I can't make you accept what's right there in black and white. I can only point out that it does, in fact, exist.



"Failure" is in the eye of the beholder. This entire tangent was started based upon your misunderstanding of the primary objective of the ACA. And as I indicated earlier that was expanding coverage. Which it has done without question. It's also projected to reduce the deficit over 10 years by the CBC. Time will tell if reality coincides with those projections. What we know now is that the growth in healthcare cost inflation is the lowest it's been in 50 years since the passage of the ACA. Now one can quibble about whether that is causation or correlation. But again, only time will tell. Regardless, taxpayers as a whole are going to pay for increased healthcare costs one way or another. The only question is how? Option A is to subsidize the uninsured resorting to the emergency room and its associated top dollar services with even higher private insurance premiums. Whereas Option B is to subsidize healthcare insurance for the uninsured via the tax code. Pick your poison. But the latter has been shown to be the less costly option by every other advanced nation that has tried it.

OAW
You have this nasty habit off wholesale ignoring points that counter your narrative.

"• President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
Obama: 'If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan' | PolitiFact

I see alot of words up there OAW, but none of them explain how the ACA (predictably) did not make good on it's promise to "reduce costs" or for anyone to see "falling costs as our reforms take hold". You were sold a bridge, that now you're calling a pier ("it was never intended to be a bridge because erm...uuh,, context!").

The American people were told this would "reduce costs", but as you say, it was never intended to reduce costs because of uh...context! Add that to the list of things that we were lied to about, and the exact opposite of the promise has (again, predictably) proven to be true.

If costs are continuing to go up, just how do you suppose we'll afford to keep all those people covered OAW? The whole "point" (at least as we were told) of the ACA was to counter the rising number of uninsured due to skyrocketing costs. They know how stupid you are (or at least how far you'll go to keep the egg off your face), which is why they're comfortable saying things like "pass it to see what's in it!" and "you can keep your doctor AND all you'll see are falling costs". One of the architects of the ACA even admitted it publicly:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth.../#2410f4ed779b
Originally Posted by Forbes quoting Jonothan Gruber
"the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends—imposing Obamacare upon the public—justified the means.

I admire your stubbornness, OAW, and I appreciate the goal (at least what you were told the goal was) of the pipe-dream you want to believe in. I just with you'd utilize that stubbornness for the good of us all, instead of just the good of your pride.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You have this nasty habit off wholesale ignoring points that counter your narrative.
Actually I have a habit of staying focused on the original issue. Again, you were the one who said ...

Which part of "reduces health care costs" means "reduces the cost curves but doesn't actually reduce costs?"
Now I imagine that it's a little embarrassing to have your own source contradict you on that point. But it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
"• President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
Obama: 'If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan' | PolitiFact

I see alot of words up there OAW, but none of them explain how the ACA (predictably) did not make good on it's promise to "reduce costs" or for anyone to see "falling costs as our reforms take hold". You were sold a bridge, that now you're calling a pier ("it was never intended to be a bridge because erm...uuh,, context!").

The American people were told this would "reduce costs", but as you say, it was never intended to reduce costs because of uh...context! Add that to the list of things that we were lied to about, and the exact opposite of the promise has (again, predictably) proven to be true.
So now that we've established that you've shifted the goalposts let's delve into your next contention. The PolitiFact article you cited makes reference to a weekly address by the POTUS delivered on June 05, 2009 ... barely a few months into office. Now let's set aside the fact that the ACA wasn't even signed into law until March 23, 2010 so this was during the negotiation stage and long before the final legislation took shape. Let's look at the wider text itself ...

Originally Posted by President Obama
We must attack the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs. Some of these costs are the result of unwarranted profiteering that has no place in our health care system, and in too many communities, folks are paying higher costs without receiving better care in return. And yet we know, for example, that there are places like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and other institutions that offer some of the highest quality of care in the nation at some of the lowest costs in the nation. We should learn from their successes and promote the best practices, not the most expensive ones. That’s how we’ll achieve reform that fixes what doesn’t work, and builds on what does.

This week, I conveyed to Congress my belief that any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage, and also protect consumer choice. That means if you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.

I also made it very clear to Congress that we must develop a plan that doesn’t add to our budget deficit. My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues. We’ll eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our health care system, but we’ll also take on key causes of rising costs – saving billions while providing better care to the American people.
So my point remains that the word "costs" has different meanings depending upon context:
  • "costs" - aggregate
  • "costs" - individual
  • "costs" - government

Now the particular quote you cited ... The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold. ... is discussing individual costs with respect to health insurance premiums. So what do studies say about the impact of the ACA in that regard?

Several studies on insurance premiums expect that with the subsidies offered under the ACA, more people will pay less (than they did prior to the reforms) than those who will pay more, and that those premiums will be more stable (even in changing health circumstances) and transparent, due to the regulations on insurance.[247][248][249] The Kaiser Family Foundation has calculated that about half the people who currently buy insurance on their own today will be eligible for subsidies. Among those receiving subsidies (which excludes those with incomes above four times the poverty line — about $46,000 for individuals or $94,000 for a family of four), the subsidies are projected to be worth an average of $5,548 per household, which would effectively discount the projected price of insurance by two-thirds, on average.[250] For individuals, NPR and the Kaiser Family Foundation collaborated to produce a quick online calculator for people to estimate their premiums and subsidy amount, based on where they live, income, and family size.[249]

For the effect on health insurance premiums, the CBO forecast that by 2016 the individual market would comprise 17% of the market, and that premiums per person would increase by 10% to 13% but that over half of these individuals would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law.[251][252] It also forecast that for the small group market, 13% of the market, premiums would be impacted 1% to -3%, and -8% to -11% for those receiving subsidies; for the large group market comprising 70% of the market, premiums would be impacted 0% to -3%, with those under high premium plans subject to excise taxes being charged 9% to 12% less. Factors taken into account by this analysis included increased benefits particularly for the individual market, more healthy policyholders due to the mandate, administrative efficiencies related to the health exchanges, and high-premium insurance plans reducing some benefits in response to the tax.[252] As of September 2013, the final projections of the average monthly premium scheduled to be offered in the exchanges came in below CBO expectations, reducing expected costs not only for consumers but also for the government by reducing the overall cost of the subsidies.[253][254][255][256]
So the expectations are for the ACA to have negligible impact on the lion's share of Americans that participate in the large group employer-sponsored health insurance market. Because that's not the focus on the legislation. And significant impact on the individual and small group employer-sponsored health insurance markets where SUBSIDIES come into play. The bottom line here is that you can't compare apples and oranges. You can't look at figures that show year-over-year increases in health care costs in aggregate ... which are bound to happen especially if the GOP continues to insist on restricting the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices BY LAW .... and not factor in the impact of subsidies for the individual health insurance premiums.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 09:20 AM
 
Someone has been Grubered and doesn't know it. He was right.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Someone has been Grubered and doesn't know it. He was right.
I'm still not sure how he's getting from "all you'll see are falling costs" and the ACA "reduces costs" to mean something completely opposite, because uhh.....context!

It is either supposed to reduce costs or it isn't. We were told it was, and it isn't, and yet somehow it was never supposed to do so because it doesn't fit the narrative.

OAW, I can't really argue with you anymore, as you're failing to acknowledge the meaning of simple english such as "all you'll see are falling costs" and "reduces costs". Instead, you dig around enough to find ways to use circular logic to tell me why those words actually mean the complete opposite. It's a zealousness that encroaches upon religious fervor, and it's obvious at this point you aren't interested in honest discussion.

The man told us it would reduce costs. His website tells us it will reduce costs, and the source material you quoted uses the verbiage "reduces costs" in its title headers, yet you're here presumably with a straight face saying that it was never supposed to reduce costs. I could find you another 1000 sources that say it's supposed to reduce costs, yet you'll still tell me I'm reading it wrong. It's dishonest, and I can't (and don't want) to engage in a conversation where my adversary can't acknowledge the meaning of simple english - it's a waste of time. Believe what you want, I have simple and direct quotes on my side - you have convoluted logic that relies upon "context" as a rationale to change the meaning of direct, simple English. I'm sorry brother, but I just can't believe at this point you'll acknowledge or listen to any argument, no matter how logical and well-supported, that contradicts your preferred narrative on the ACA.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Actually I have a habit of staying focused on the original issue. Again, you were the one who said ...



Now I imagine that it's a little embarrassing to have your own source contradict you on that point. But it is what it is.
I'm not embarrassed at all OAW. I can grasp simple English including and beyond simple phrases such as "it will reduce costs" and "all you'll see are falling costs", and it seems you're struggling with what that means.


So now that we've established that you've shifted the goalposts let's delve into your next contention. The PolitiFact article you cited makes reference to a weekly address by the POTUS delivered on June 05, 2009 ... barely a few months into office. Now let's set aside the fact that the ACA wasn't even signed into law until March 23, 2010 so this was during the negotiation stage and long before the final legislation took shape. Let's look at the wider text itself ...
I never shifted the goalposts, I provided yet another example that was even more obvious than the first since the "reduces costs" still seems to be giving you a problem. I figured "all you'll see are falling costs" would be a bit easier for you to digest, but it seems I was wrong.

He lied about it before it was passed, so that's ok? I don't recall him ever coming out and saying "I was wrong about it reducing costs" to correct his erroneous quote so AFAIC, it doesn't matter when he said it or when it was passed. He was talking about the ACA, right?

So my point remains that the word "costs" has different meanings depending upon context:
And I maintain that you're making shit up to fit your narrative.

  • "costs" - aggregate
  • "costs" - individual
  • "costs" - government

Now the particular quote you cited ... The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold. ... is discussing individual costs with respect to health insurance premiums. So what do studies say about the impact of the ACA in that regard?



So the expectations are for the ACA to have negligible impact on the lion's share of Americans that participate in the large group employer-sponsored health insurance market. Because that's not the focus on the legislation. And significant impact on the individual and small group employer-sponsored health insurance markets where SUBSIDIES come into play. The bottom line here is that you can't compare apples and oranges. You can't look at figures that show year-over-year increases in health care costs in aggregate ... which are bound to happen especially if the GOP continues to insist on restricting the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices BY LAW .... and not factor in the impact of subsidies for the individual health insurance premiums.

OAW
You're just making shit up on what he meant by costs to fit your argument that "reduces costs" mean that costs go up. If he had meant costs differently in each of the colors you outlined, he would have said "aggregate costs", "individual costs" and "government costs". They teach you how to do that in kindergarden, and since I believe you to be much smarter than a 1st grader the only other conclusion I can come to is that you're being willfully dishonest.

The wikipedia article you cited uses projections that were made pre ACA making it outdated and irrelevent to what the ACA has actually done, despite what it was promised or projected to do. If you want to back up your argument that costs are lower, use real numbers (not predicted numbers) from 2016 or at least the latter half of 2015.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 24, 2016 at 05:50 PM. Reason: Fixed quotes & Typos)
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 01:05 PM
 
^^^

We can go around and around about this all day. You can dismiss what I said all you want. Rebutting it is an entirely different matter. The bottom line is that you simply aren't addressing my point. For instance, I stated based upon CONTEXT that when the word "costs" was used where I highlighted it in green it was speaking about healthcare costs that the government would cover and its impact on the deficit. Feel free to break that paragraph down and show that it was not. Because quite frankly ... it was "simple English" to me. Simple enough to the point where I'm puzzled why you would even bother to be contentious about it. I'll wait.

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

We can go around and around about this all day. You can dismiss what I said all you want. Rebutting it is an entirely different matter. The bottom line is that you simply aren't addressing my point. For instance, I stated based upon CONTEXT that when the word "costs" was used where I highlighted it in green it was speaking about healthcare costs that the government would cover and its impact on the deficit. Feel free to break that paragraph down and show that it was not. Because quite frankly ... it was "simple English" to me. Simple enough to the point where I'm puzzled why you would even bother to be contentious about it. I'll wait.

OAW
OAW, I can't rebut you attempting to change the meaning of the words "reduces costs". I'm not addressing your point because you aren't making one. You're saying that "reduces costs" actually means something different, based on your interpretation of what you think they could have meant now that it's apparent that infact no, it's not reducing costs. The idea that they lied to you (again) is completely off the table for you, when all evidence points exactly to that conclusion (especially since they've even admitted they relied on the American voter being stupid to get it passed). We can go back and forth forever, but I'm not dealing in speculation of what other interpretations of extremely simple english could mean so that you can pigeon hole your narrative that the ACA is doing what it was promised to do, when it very clearly and simply is not. No amount of spinning words and meanings is going to change that reality, and I'm not interested in following you down some twisted logic where "reduces" actually means "increases" because....context!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
OAW, I can't rebut you attempting to change the meaning of the words "reduces costs". I'm not addressing your point because you aren't making one. You're saying that "reduces costs" actually means something different, based on your interpretation of what you think they could have meant now that it's apparent that infact no, it's not reducing costs. The idea that they lied to you (again) is completely off the table for you, when all evidence points exactly to that conclusion (especially since they've even admitted they relied on the American voter being stupid to get it passed). We can go back and forth forever, but I'm not dealing in speculation of what other interpretations of extremely simple english could mean so that you can pigeon hole your narrative that the ACA is doing what it was promised to do, when it very clearly and simply is not. No amount of spinning words and meanings is going to change that reality, and I'm not interested in following you down some twisted logic where "reduces" actually means "increases" because....context!
Yeah. This has nothing to do with government costs and the deficit at all. That's just "speculation".

I also made it very clear to Congress that we must develop a plan that doesn’t add to our budget deficit. My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues. We’ll eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our health care system, but we’ll also take on key causes of rising costs – saving billions while providing better care to the American people.
OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yeah. This has nothing to do with government costs and the deficit at all. That's just "speculation".



OAW
"All you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold"

and from your quote

"but we’ll also take on key causes of rising costs – saving billions while providing better care to the American people."

     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
"All you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold"
And as I stated for those in the individual market that the reforms targeted most do when the subsidies are factored in. Think about it man. Obamare is about healthcare insurance. Quite to the contrary of the fear-mongering on the right it was never about a "government takeover of healthcare" with respect to healthcare providers. Cost increases come from the latter. And again, the GOP saw fit to prohibit the federal government BY LAW from using its volume purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. Which are one of the primary drivers of increased healthcare costs. Because true to form the GOP chose to protect the interests of big business over taxpayers.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 11:36 PM
 
See OAW, things like that wouldn't happen to you, either. You wouldn't get stuck trying to defend the actions of politicians whose positions are indefensible. Hell, if Ben Shapiro can admit Bush lied about Iraq, you can admit Obama lied about the ACA. Right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2016, 04:56 AM
 
Which part did Bush lie about?

There was a lack of due diligence, and they way oversold what they thought the severity of the threat was, but they assumed they'd find something.

We had a foot-high stack of potential sites, and until we started in with the threats, Hussein was spreading disinformation about having them in order to keep his enemies (Iran and the Kurds) scared.

As I said, there's plenty of evidence Bush wasn't concerned about WMDs, but that there was nothing? That actually took them by surprise.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2016, 09:29 AM
 
He lied about Iraq being the greatest terror threat in the region when we had solid intel that it wasn't (Syria and Afghanistan were way higher on the list). There had been WMDs but they were long gone by the time of the invasion, only leaving behind a tiny stockpile of buried, long-forgotten munitions that were older than I am, that couldn't have been used if they tried. He was simply wanting to finish his daddy's war and didn't care what he had to do to accomplish that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2016, 09:44 AM
 
I certainly agree he oversold the threat.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And as I stated for those in the individual market that the reforms targeted most do when the subsidies are factored in. Think about it man. Obamare is about healthcare insurance. Quite to the contrary of the fear-mongering on the right it was never about a "government takeover of healthcare" with respect to healthcare providers. Cost increases come from the latter. And again, the GOP saw fit to prohibit the federal government BY LAW from using its volume purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. Which are one of the primary drivers of increased healthcare costs. Because true to form the GOP chose to protect the interests of big business over taxpayers.

OAW
But costs aren't falling. Infact they're rising. If Obama couldn't deliver falling costs, he shouldn't have promised it....no matter what you believe the cause to be.

You're delusional OAW. Your first sentence doesn't even parse. I have thought about it, and you're full of shit on this one. You're shredding your credibility on other topics, demonstrating that you're incapable of conceding points that very clearly & very simply you're wrong about. I can't help you with that, not when the conclusions you reach require you to attempt to change the meaning of basic, simple english & fill in so many gaps with your own assumptions & assertions that you might as well go into business fixing potholes - you could fix America's roads overnight with all that puddy.

Obama:
"All you'll see are falling costs"

OAW:
"Well, costs are really rising, but here's some convoluted logic that demonstrates why 'falling costs' really doesn't mean what you think it means. Context!".

My work is done here, believe what you want OAW, but i can't have a rational discussion with someone that is uninterested in acknowledging the denotation & connotation of extremely simple english. It's dishonest, and you'll never sell out your ideology no matter how irrational & illogical your arguments become. If you ever have a change of heart and want to have a real discussion, instead of spewing your reality-defying propaganda, let me know and I'll be happy to resume this conversation.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I honestly don't know what you conservatives actually want when it comes to health care.
We've explained it to you several times right here in the NN forums. If you want to know, go look.

The only thing is clear to me is that you know what you don't want (the ACA), but you don't really know what you want.
Yes, we do, and we've explained it to you at least 4-5 times.

I mean, many of you have your own ideas, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, and nothing that I've heard sounds like it would take a big dent out of these massive costs. Maybe I'm just being impatient and/or a bad listener though...
I won't disagree with you there, but I'm here to help.

You guys have been ornery about the ACA for years. We get it. You have a chance now to elect new leadership. Isn't now the time to be building a consensus and traction around some concrete ideas?
The concrete ideas have been in place since before the ACA was enacted. Our ideas are incongruent with the ACA, and actually take an opposite approach.


Without just bitching and moaning about the ACA (not because I feel compelled to defend it, but because this would be boring since we've been doing this for years), how about we see if we can discuss some ideas? I've heard some general philosophical frameworks such as allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines, but in addition to these frameworks I would also be interested in your ideas as to how this would reduce our costs significantly?
One of the biggest threads I can remember here in the NN has everything you need to get up to speed. Go find it, read my posts (ebuddy's may be a bit easier to parse then mine) and come on back with what you learned. I'd be happy to resume the conversations we had in that thread with regards to healthcare, but I don't want to rehash the thousands of posts on the subject we've already had.

Here's a few key points to help get you started. These points are predicated on a full repeal of the ACA (and some points may overlap).
-Remove the disconnect between patient care & costs for routine procedures & checkups.
-Remove the administrative boondoggle of having 50 seperate markets that can't compete head to head
-Remove some providers status as quasi governmental protected entity's
-incentivize startups in the sector through a number of mechanisms, up to & including grants & loans.
-Tort reform (this is a big one)
-Regulations that set a level, fair playing field without picking winners & losers.
-Provide a federally funded safety net to protect the edge cases (with STRICT restrictions to prevent fraud & abuse).
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're delusional OAW.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
My work is done here, believe what you want OAW, but i can't have a rational discussion with someone that is uninterested in acknowledging the denotation & connotation of extremely simple english.
You can call me whatever you want. It doesn't bother me at all. Because you are right. It really is "extremely simple english." Again, let's not forget how this all started. I stated that the primary objective of the ACA with respect to healthcare costs was to "bend the growth of the cost curve" over time. You challenged me on that front with a quote from a source that you found.

Originally Posted by Snow-i
"In keeping with the President’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving over $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care and making investments to fund research into what works."
Which part of "reduces health care costs" means "reduces the cost curves but doesn't actually reduce costs?"
I mean the sarcasm was palpable! And so I answered your question from your own source.

Originally Posted by OAW
The part that's just a few paragraphs down on the page you just cited. Where the part you stated was reiterated almost verbatim with this additional context.

Bending the growth curve of health care spending: In keeping with President Obama’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving more than $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care, making investments to fund research into what works, and cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
So when you get done talking your own source reiterated the original point that I made. It's right there in black and white! In that "extremely simple english" that you are so fond of. Now it's not my fault if you read the headline and not the article. It's not my fault if you cherry-pick certain quotes in the article that fit your preferred narrative but don't bother to see how they relate to the rest of the article. Again, if you had we wouldn't be having this particular conversation because you wouldn't have chosen a quote that had "Bending the growth curve of health care spending:" as a sub-heading in the part you didn't get to. Just saying.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,