- This topic has 185 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 15, 2011 at 10:34 AM #720569August 15, 2011 at 11:34 AM #719395
SK in CV
Participant[quote=flu]Ok folks,
For folks in the know. Can someone quickly explain to me what is left from the health care reform (obamacare) and how it’s suppose to benefit the greater good of people?
How much of the original reform bill is still intact?
What I have seen so far is:
1)My out of pocket insurance expenses have increased significantly.
2)The amount of coverage has decreased significantly
3)Company has reduced what it pays to insurance but passed more of the cost on to individuals.
4)And now lower appeals court is saying not everyone needs to pay for a mandatory insurance plan….
So what exactly is left in this “reform”?????
I’m not sure where to start in this thread, so I guess it might as well be at the beginning.
I’m not sure what you mean by “original bill” or “still intact”. Assuming the “original bill” means the law passed by congress and signed by the president, it is all intact. There have been court cases questioning the constitutionality of some parts of the bill. Where we stand today is that 2 circuit courts of appeal have come to different conclusions. One says it’s all constitutional, the other says that the mandate part of the law is not, and that all other parts remain intact. Ultimately, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Since the mandate wasn’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014, so as a practical matter nothing has changed from the original bill.
None of the pieces of the law that might effect your items 1 to 3 have gone into effect yet, and are the changes you’ve experienced are more an issue of your employer passing on a greater share of medical costs to you and/or decreasing benefits to increase their bottom line. None of it has anything to do with health care reform.
August 15, 2011 at 11:34 AM #719488Participant[quote=flu]Ok folks,
For folks in the know. Can someone quickly explain to me what is left from the health care reform (obamacare) and how it’s suppose to benefit the greater good of people?
How much of the original reform bill is still intact?
What I have seen so far is:
1)My out of pocket insurance expenses have increased significantly.
2)The amount of coverage has decreased significantly
3)Company has reduced what it pays to insurance but passed more of the cost on to individuals.
4)And now lower appeals court is saying not everyone needs to pay for a mandatory insurance plan….
So what exactly is left in this “reform”?????
I’m not sure where to start in this thread, so I guess it might as well be at the beginning.
I’m not sure what you mean by “original bill” or “still intact”. Assuming the “original bill” means the law passed by congress and signed by the president, it is all intact. There have been court cases questioning the constitutionality of some parts of the bill. Where we stand today is that 2 circuit courts of appeal have come to different conclusions. One says it’s all constitutional, the other says that the mandate part of the law is not, and that all other parts remain intact. Ultimately, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Since the mandate wasn’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014, so as a practical matter nothing has changed from the original bill.
None of the pieces of the law that might effect your items 1 to 3 have gone into effect yet, and are the changes you’ve experienced are more an issue of your employer passing on a greater share of medical costs to you and/or decreasing benefits to increase their bottom line. None of it has anything to do with health care reform.
August 15, 2011 at 11:34 AM #720087Participant[quote=flu]Ok folks,
For folks in the know. Can someone quickly explain to me what is left from the health care reform (obamacare) and how it’s suppose to benefit the greater good of people?
How much of the original reform bill is still intact?
What I have seen so far is:
1)My out of pocket insurance expenses have increased significantly.
2)The amount of coverage has decreased significantly
3)Company has reduced what it pays to insurance but passed more of the cost on to individuals.
4)And now lower appeals court is saying not everyone needs to pay for a mandatory insurance plan….
So what exactly is left in this “reform”?????
I’m not sure where to start in this thread, so I guess it might as well be at the beginning.
I’m not sure what you mean by “original bill” or “still intact”. Assuming the “original bill” means the law passed by congress and signed by the president, it is all intact. There have been court cases questioning the constitutionality of some parts of the bill. Where we stand today is that 2 circuit courts of appeal have come to different conclusions. One says it’s all constitutional, the other says that the mandate part of the law is not, and that all other parts remain intact. Ultimately, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Since the mandate wasn’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014, so as a practical matter nothing has changed from the original bill.
None of the pieces of the law that might effect your items 1 to 3 have gone into effect yet, and are the changes you’ve experienced are more an issue of your employer passing on a greater share of medical costs to you and/or decreasing benefits to increase their bottom line. None of it has anything to do with health care reform.
August 15, 2011 at 11:34 AM #720244Participant[quote=flu]Ok folks,
For folks in the know. Can someone quickly explain to me what is left from the health care reform (obamacare) and how it’s suppose to benefit the greater good of people?
How much of the original reform bill is still intact?
What I have seen so far is:
1)My out of pocket insurance expenses have increased significantly.
2)The amount of coverage has decreased significantly
3)Company has reduced what it pays to insurance but passed more of the cost on to individuals.
4)And now lower appeals court is saying not everyone needs to pay for a mandatory insurance plan….
So what exactly is left in this “reform”?????
I’m not sure where to start in this thread, so I guess it might as well be at the beginning.
I’m not sure what you mean by “original bill” or “still intact”. Assuming the “original bill” means the law passed by congress and signed by the president, it is all intact. There have been court cases questioning the constitutionality of some parts of the bill. Where we stand today is that 2 circuit courts of appeal have come to different conclusions. One says it’s all constitutional, the other says that the mandate part of the law is not, and that all other parts remain intact. Ultimately, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Since the mandate wasn’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014, so as a practical matter nothing has changed from the original bill.
None of the pieces of the law that might effect your items 1 to 3 have gone into effect yet, and are the changes you’ve experienced are more an issue of your employer passing on a greater share of medical costs to you and/or decreasing benefits to increase their bottom line. None of it has anything to do with health care reform.
August 15, 2011 at 11:34 AM #720607Participant[quote=flu]Ok folks,
For folks in the know. Can someone quickly explain to me what is left from the health care reform (obamacare) and how it’s suppose to benefit the greater good of people?
How much of the original reform bill is still intact?
What I have seen so far is:
1)My out of pocket insurance expenses have increased significantly.
2)The amount of coverage has decreased significantly
3)Company has reduced what it pays to insurance but passed more of the cost on to individuals.
4)And now lower appeals court is saying not everyone needs to pay for a mandatory insurance plan….
So what exactly is left in this “reform”?????
I’m not sure where to start in this thread, so I guess it might as well be at the beginning.
I’m not sure what you mean by “original bill” or “still intact”. Assuming the “original bill” means the law passed by congress and signed by the president, it is all intact. There have been court cases questioning the constitutionality of some parts of the bill. Where we stand today is that 2 circuit courts of appeal have come to different conclusions. One says it’s all constitutional, the other says that the mandate part of the law is not, and that all other parts remain intact. Ultimately, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Since the mandate wasn’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014, so as a practical matter nothing has changed from the original bill.
None of the pieces of the law that might effect your items 1 to 3 have gone into effect yet, and are the changes you’ve experienced are more an issue of your employer passing on a greater share of medical costs to you and/or decreasing benefits to increase their bottom line. None of it has anything to do with health care reform.
August 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM #719410Participant[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]There is no “medicare-style approach” in the ACA, except with regards to specific changes to medicare and broadened the medicare type incentives to providers (which you claim should have been in there and isn’t.) Additionally, contrary to your claim, the medicare model for health insurance and delivery is and always has been an overwhelming success. Its shortcomings are all related to the financing of the program (exacerbated by the, as a practical matter, unfunded Part D, passed under Bush, which was classic spend and kick the bill down the road a generation.).
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
Even in states where there is currently theoretical competition, rates have risen dramatically over the last 15 years. There is no evidence that more competition will decrease costs. Medical insurers gouge comsumers. It’s what they do. Though in my opinion poorly conceived, the ACA did set floors on the percentage of premium dollars that must pay for direct health care costs. (Medical Loss Ratio or MLR in insurance lingo.) The inverse of that ratio (or the amount of premium dollars that did NOT go to pay for health care costs, has trippled over the last two decades. Effective the beginning of this year, it is now capped.
August 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM #719503Participant[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]There is no “medicare-style approach” in the ACA, except with regards to specific changes to medicare and broadened the medicare type incentives to providers (which you claim should have been in there and isn’t.) Additionally, contrary to your claim, the medicare model for health insurance and delivery is and always has been an overwhelming success. Its shortcomings are all related to the financing of the program (exacerbated by the, as a practical matter, unfunded Part D, passed under Bush, which was classic spend and kick the bill down the road a generation.).
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
Even in states where there is currently theoretical competition, rates have risen dramatically over the last 15 years. There is no evidence that more competition will decrease costs. Medical insurers gouge comsumers. It’s what they do. Though in my opinion poorly conceived, the ACA did set floors on the percentage of premium dollars that must pay for direct health care costs. (Medical Loss Ratio or MLR in insurance lingo.) The inverse of that ratio (or the amount of premium dollars that did NOT go to pay for health care costs, has trippled over the last two decades. Effective the beginning of this year, it is now capped.
August 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM #720102Participant[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]There is no “medicare-style approach” in the ACA, except with regards to specific changes to medicare and broadened the medicare type incentives to providers (which you claim should have been in there and isn’t.) Additionally, contrary to your claim, the medicare model for health insurance and delivery is and always has been an overwhelming success. Its shortcomings are all related to the financing of the program (exacerbated by the, as a practical matter, unfunded Part D, passed under Bush, which was classic spend and kick the bill down the road a generation.).
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
Even in states where there is currently theoretical competition, rates have risen dramatically over the last 15 years. There is no evidence that more competition will decrease costs. Medical insurers gouge comsumers. It’s what they do. Though in my opinion poorly conceived, the ACA did set floors on the percentage of premium dollars that must pay for direct health care costs. (Medical Loss Ratio or MLR in insurance lingo.) The inverse of that ratio (or the amount of premium dollars that did NOT go to pay for health care costs, has trippled over the last two decades. Effective the beginning of this year, it is now capped.
August 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM #720259Participant[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]There is no “medicare-style approach” in the ACA, except with regards to specific changes to medicare and broadened the medicare type incentives to providers (which you claim should have been in there and isn’t.) Additionally, contrary to your claim, the medicare model for health insurance and delivery is and always has been an overwhelming success. Its shortcomings are all related to the financing of the program (exacerbated by the, as a practical matter, unfunded Part D, passed under Bush, which was classic spend and kick the bill down the road a generation.).
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
Even in states where there is currently theoretical competition, rates have risen dramatically over the last 15 years. There is no evidence that more competition will decrease costs. Medical insurers gouge comsumers. It’s what they do. Though in my opinion poorly conceived, the ACA did set floors on the percentage of premium dollars that must pay for direct health care costs. (Medical Loss Ratio or MLR in insurance lingo.) The inverse of that ratio (or the amount of premium dollars that did NOT go to pay for health care costs, has trippled over the last two decades. Effective the beginning of this year, it is now capped.
August 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM #720622Participant[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]There is no “medicare-style approach” in the ACA, except with regards to specific changes to medicare and broadened the medicare type incentives to providers (which you claim should have been in there and isn’t.) Additionally, contrary to your claim, the medicare model for health insurance and delivery is and always has been an overwhelming success. Its shortcomings are all related to the financing of the program (exacerbated by the, as a practical matter, unfunded Part D, passed under Bush, which was classic spend and kick the bill down the road a generation.).
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
Even in states where there is currently theoretical competition, rates have risen dramatically over the last 15 years. There is no evidence that more competition will decrease costs. Medical insurers gouge comsumers. It’s what they do. Though in my opinion poorly conceived, the ACA did set floors on the percentage of premium dollars that must pay for direct health care costs. (Medical Loss Ratio or MLR in insurance lingo.) The inverse of that ratio (or the amount of premium dollars that did NOT go to pay for health care costs, has trippled over the last two decades. Effective the beginning of this year, it is now capped.
August 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM #719420Participant[quote=UCGal]I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.
Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]
I don’t disagree that it was a give away to private insurers. And there were insufficient cost constraints. There are however, as noted above, profit constraints for private insurers. This was part of the trade off for the mandate.
August 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM #719513Participant[quote=UCGal]I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.
Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]
I don’t disagree that it was a give away to private insurers. And there were insufficient cost constraints. There are however, as noted above, profit constraints for private insurers. This was part of the trade off for the mandate.
August 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM #720112Participant[quote=UCGal]I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.
Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]
I don’t disagree that it was a give away to private insurers. And there were insufficient cost constraints. There are however, as noted above, profit constraints for private insurers. This was part of the trade off for the mandate.
August 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM #720269Participant[quote=UCGal]I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.
Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]
I don’t disagree that it was a give away to private insurers. And there were insufficient cost constraints. There are however, as noted above, profit constraints for private insurers. This was part of the trade off for the mandate.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.