- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Thomas Gallatin: Obama Doubled Your Healthcare Premium
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:55 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:55 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. One is a portion of the price. The other is the entirety of the cost. If were measuring cost, measuring a portion of it isn't "context".
You just said nothing that was not already covered.
Total costs is important for contextualizing certain things, so you don't want to ignore it. But when a person, like the OP and the person this conversation has stemmed from, begins talking about the consumer impact of premium rises, and throws in things like employer based insurance premiums(another wrench to this discussion due to tax subsidies and employer contribution changes) quoting total costs with what his out-of-pocket premiums, without providing more context is highly misleading. either intentionally or through ignorance. I would add ignoring the context of pre-ACA trends is also poor form.
Had this been a blog post simply about raw prices and unadjusted consumer costs, ignoring that context would be fine. But it wasn't.
quote:
is that what you think that was?
It's what it always is with you.
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 10:32 pm
1
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:41 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Feel free to post them again, but it isn't really going to change the the discussion much.
Yeah. If you say things like "I was making shite up based on my sincere beliefs" it doesn't change it much.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:48 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. If you say things like "I was making shite up based on my sincere beliefs" it doesn't change it much.
It wouldn't matter because to argue that litigation caps always lower premiums and reduces defensive medicine, kinda requires a person to prove that it always does those things.
Just offering up info on Missouri is interesting if your data does in fact support that, but it doesn't prove the thesis.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 11:33 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Indeed. It's a wonder why you're continuing to vomit word salad for a failed premise.
You just said nothing that was not already covered
quote:
It's what it always is with you
can't make a point w/o an insult. It's telling. Kinda reminds me of Vegas Bengal, except he always resorted "you're a racist". This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 5/26/17 at 11:46 pm to KCT
That increase in premiums is to have been expected with inflation, and advanced medical and pharmaceutical technology.
What ObamaCare has done is retard the upward trend in prices for premiums and deductibles. I believed our President when he said savings of $2,500/family/year
What ObamaCare has done is retard the upward trend in prices for premiums and deductibles. I believed our President when he said savings of $2,500/family/year
Posted on 5/26/17 at 11:56 pm to tarzana
quote:
What ObamaCare has done is retard the upward trend in prices for premiums and deductibles. I believed our President when he said savings of $2,500/family/year
quote:President Obama’s claim that insurance premiums ‘will go down’
So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it. You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”
Posted on 5/27/17 at 1:25 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Indeed. It's a wonder why you're continuing to vomit word salad for a failed premise.
I understand that conversations that require a 7th grade or higher education trigger you incessently, but if you would spend less time shite-posting and more time listening to the adults in the room talk, you would begin seeing some progress.
Who knows, ten years from now we might be able to include you at the big boys table.
Posted on 5/27/17 at 5:54 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:farcical?quote:Don't know what you are referring to, but you don't need any of that. Just simple addition and subtraction skills, basic accounting knowledge, and some logic.
Do tell.
Just please no reference to the recent Pocahontas/Summers' embarrassment
They used their farcical 2 trillion dollar revenue projection twice, once to pay for tax cuts, and then again to help balance the budget.
It appears to me the Trump Administration's economic team simply applied obamanomics' growth rate (2%) vs a frankly conservative assessment of growth rate projection under Trump's Proposed Tax Reform Plan (3%). Then they tallied differences over 10yrs.
The cumulative tax revenue differential IAW Hauser's Law, using an 18% rate, would be $4.152T. So all things being equal, Trump's Tax revenue would exceed that in the Obamanomics model by over $4.1Trillion.
However, as Larry Summers, Elizabeth Pocahontas, and others point out, all things are not equal. Due to rate reductions, Trump Tax may not collect as much as obamanomics tax would have. To remedy that, it appears Mnuchin and Mulvaney adjusted their tax revenue numbers downward by over $2Trillion.
So they claimed a "cost" of $2Trillion with a net of $2.1Trillion in revenue.
ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if the Trump Team's numbers, with rounding, came out at $2.1T in "cost" and $2.1T in revenue. That would account for Pocahontas, Summers, the Networks, etc. all jumping on the repeated $2.1T number, assuming it was some sort of double count.
This post was edited on 5/27/17 at 6:46 am
Posted on 5/27/17 at 7:56 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
bonhoeffer45
Do you honestly believe that Medicaid coverage is anywhere close to private healthcare? You do realize that the best doctors don't take Medicaid in many fields because they can afford not to right? At least half of the people with private insurance wouldn't be happy with Medicaid type of coverage and pay privately for a large portion of their care. This happens routinely with Medicare btw.
Medicaid is something like 40-60% or more of patients, and doctors either have to take them all or none. Medicaid charges less than private insurance because of that reason alone. If a private insurance paid what Medicaid did, a doctor wouldnt accept that insurance.
Therefore you are comparing apples and oranges on costs. In many cases, Medicaid pays under what a doctor needs to make a profit so they make 100% of their profit off of 40% of their patients that pay privately.
This post was edited on 5/27/17 at 7:58 am
Posted on 5/27/17 at 8:54 am to baldona
quote:He probably does
Do you honestly believe that Medicaid coverage is anywhere close to private healthcare?
Posted on 5/27/17 at 9:05 am to NC_Tigah
Just adding to the suckage of Obamacare:
"HHS released recent figures detailing premium increases between 2013 and 2017.
Here are five things to know
1. On HealthCare.gov, average individual market premiums increased from $2,784 per in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017.
2. In this time span, individual market premiums jumped 105 percent.
3. The 39 states using HealthCare.gov all had increases in individual market premiums between 2013 and 2017.
4. Compared to 2013, 62 percent of states using HealthCare.gov had their premiums jump nearly 50 percent.
5. Alaska, Alabama and Oklahoma had premiums triple in the aforementioned time frame."
LINK
"HHS released recent figures detailing premium increases between 2013 and 2017.
Here are five things to know
1. On HealthCare.gov, average individual market premiums increased from $2,784 per in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017.
2. In this time span, individual market premiums jumped 105 percent.
3. The 39 states using HealthCare.gov all had increases in individual market premiums between 2013 and 2017.
4. Compared to 2013, 62 percent of states using HealthCare.gov had their premiums jump nearly 50 percent.
5. Alaska, Alabama and Oklahoma had premiums triple in the aforementioned time frame."
LINK
Posted on 5/27/17 at 9:46 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
I understand that conversations that require a 7th grade or higher education trigger you incessently, but if you would spend less time shite-posting and more time listening to the adults in the room talk, you would begin seeing some progress.
all about the person, not the issue. This post was edited on 5/27/17 at 9:48 am
Posted on 5/27/17 at 10:06 am to KCT
Its not true. My bc/bs plan went up 8 or $10 a year most years during obama. A couple were less, one was 20.
Posted on 5/27/17 at 11:01 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Just offering up info on Missouri is interesting if your data does in fact support that, but it doesn't prove the thesis.
It does prove you don't know what you're talking about when you use Missouri as an example of when tort reform didn't lower doctor malpractice insurance when it in fact drastically lowered it.
Posted on 5/27/17 at 2:40 pm to the808bass
quote:
It does prove you don't know what you're talking about when you use Missouri as an example of when tort reform didn't lower doctor malpractice insurance when it in fact drastically lowered it.
You still have not posted the comparative data.
Posted on 5/27/17 at 2:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It appears to me the Trump Administration's economic team simply applied obamanomics' growth rate (2%) vs a frankly conservative assessment of growth rate projection under Trump's Proposed Tax Reform Plan (3%). Then they tallied differences over 10yrs.
The cumulative tax revenue differential IAW Hauser's Law, using an 18% rate, would be $4.152T. So all things being equal, Trump's Tax revenue would exceed that in the Obamanomics model by over $4.1Trillion.
However, as Larry Summers, Elizabeth Pocahontas, and others point out, all things are not equal. Due to rate reductions, Trump Tax may not collect as much as obamanomics tax would have. To remedy that, it appears Mnuchin and Mulvaney adjusted their tax revenue numbers downward by over $2Trillion.
So they claimed a "cost" of $2Trillion with a net of $2.1Trillion in revenue.
ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if the Trump Team's numbers, with rounding, came out at $2.1T in "cost" and $2.1T in revenue. That would account for Pocahontas, Summers, the Networks, etc. all jumping on the repeated $2.1T number, assuming it was some sort of double count.
I don't know how to explain this any clearer NC. If you have 2000 dollars you got on a bonus check and you buy a TV for that 2000 dollar bonus check, you no longer have that 2000 dollars. You have a TV.
What the Trump team did was buy that TV for the 2000 dollar bonus check, then pretend they never used that 2000 dollar bonus check and then bought a new refrigerator with it.
They never had in their possession the money to pay for both. They just used the same 2000 dollars twice. It was a basic accounting frick up. And despite that, and their completely unrealistic growth projection that they used to generate that 2000 dollar bonus check, they still couldn't balance.
You bringing up Hauser and Obama is a ridiculous red herring to this. The core issue is the elementary math screw up and the more complex and unrealistic growth projection.
This post was edited on 5/27/17 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 5/27/17 at 3:04 pm to baldona
quote:
Medicaid is something like 40-60% or more of patients, and doctors either have to take them all or none. Medicaid charges less than private insurance because of that reason alone. If a private insurance paid what Medicaid did, a doctor wouldnt accept that insurance.
You are proving my point on the quantitative argument here. Medicaid, due to its bargaining power can demand lower reimbursement rates and it keeps costs lower. A dollar in Medicaid coverage stretches farther then a dollar in subsidizing private insurance.
quote:
Medicaid pays under what a doctor needs to make a profit so they make 100% of their profit off of 40% of their patients that pay privately.
Gonna need receipts on this. If this were true we would expect Medicaid centric doctors to be bankrupt. Not one of the most highly paid professions in this country.
What the evidence seems more indicative of is that doctors choose the more expensive fruit when given the choice. Which makes sense. if you are operating at capacity, why would you not seek to get a higher price for your service? The less effective private insurance negotiation system allows them to do so.
This post was edited on 5/27/17 at 3:08 pm
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News