[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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”?????

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=%5B/quote%5D

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.

[SK in CV]

[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”?????

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=%5B/quote%5D

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.

[SK in CV]

[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”?????

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=%5B/quote%5D

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.

[SK in CV]

[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”?????

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=%5B/quote%5D

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.

[SK in CV]

[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”?????

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=%5B/quote%5D

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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]The point is not to go back in time. The point is to not blindly believe that everything you are told by the govt is true…

You have made it abundantly clear in many many posts that what was done in the past helped us to avert disaster. I have never been so sure of that. In fact I think it made the rich much richer, and kept a slow bleed going instead of just removing the tumor at what would have been great pain. Geitner has simply been following what Paulson did. Corruption is not dedicated to either party… It is alive and strong in both.

[/quote]

You know, I think all of the bailouts and stimuluses (stimuli?) were poorly conceived and badly implemented. I think all the benefits they provided could have been done for a whole lot less taxpayer money. But in the long run, the difference isn’t all that significant. We’d have a shitload of debt even if there were no stimulus or bailouts. They’d didn’t cause the debt.

What I really don’t know is if there is anything that could have been done that would have put us in better position today. I really haven’t seen a plan that I think would have worked any better. Nothing that would have turned the economic crisis in 2008 into booming GDP growth or lower unemployment. I don’t suspect there was any surgery for that tumor that would have made the ecomony healthy in 2011, or 2012 or 2013 for that matter. I’m open to ideas. I’d love to see something that jumps out at me and says “THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!”. I’m not saying it’s not out there. But I haven’t seen anyone propose it yet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]The point is not to go back in time. The point is to not blindly believe that everything you are told by the govt is true…

You have made it abundantly clear in many many posts that what was done in the past helped us to avert disaster. I have never been so sure of that. In fact I think it made the rich much richer, and kept a slow bleed going instead of just removing the tumor at what would have been great pain. Geitner has simply been following what Paulson did. Corruption is not dedicated to either party… It is alive and strong in both.

[/quote]

You know, I think all of the bailouts and stimuluses (stimuli?) were poorly conceived and badly implemented. I think all the benefits they provided could have been done for a whole lot less taxpayer money. But in the long run, the difference isn’t all that significant. We’d have a shitload of debt even if there were no stimulus or bailouts. They’d didn’t cause the debt.

What I really don’t know is if there is anything that could have been done that would have put us in better position today. I really haven’t seen a plan that I think would have worked any better. Nothing that would have turned the economic crisis in 2008 into booming GDP growth or lower unemployment. I don’t suspect there was any surgery for that tumor that would have made the ecomony healthy in 2011, or 2012 or 2013 for that matter. I’m open to ideas. I’d love to see something that jumps out at me and says “THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!”. I’m not saying it’s not out there. But I haven’t seen anyone propose it yet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]The point is not to go back in time. The point is to not blindly believe that everything you are told by the govt is true…

You have made it abundantly clear in many many posts that what was done in the past helped us to avert disaster. I have never been so sure of that. In fact I think it made the rich much richer, and kept a slow bleed going instead of just removing the tumor at what would have been great pain. Geitner has simply been following what Paulson did. Corruption is not dedicated to either party… It is alive and strong in both.

[/quote]

You know, I think all of the bailouts and stimuluses (stimuli?) were poorly conceived and badly implemented. I think all the benefits they provided could have been done for a whole lot less taxpayer money. But in the long run, the difference isn’t all that significant. We’d have a shitload of debt even if there were no stimulus or bailouts. They’d didn’t cause the debt.

What I really don’t know is if there is anything that could have been done that would have put us in better position today. I really haven’t seen a plan that I think would have worked any better. Nothing that would have turned the economic crisis in 2008 into booming GDP growth or lower unemployment. I don’t suspect there was any surgery for that tumor that would have made the ecomony healthy in 2011, or 2012 or 2013 for that matter. I’m open to ideas. I’d love to see something that jumps out at me and says “THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!”. I’m not saying it’s not out there. But I haven’t seen anyone propose it yet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]The point is not to go back in time. The point is to not blindly believe that everything you are told by the govt is true…

You have made it abundantly clear in many many posts that what was done in the past helped us to avert disaster. I have never been so sure of that. In fact I think it made the rich much richer, and kept a slow bleed going instead of just removing the tumor at what would have been great pain. Geitner has simply been following what Paulson did. Corruption is not dedicated to either party… It is alive and strong in both.

[/quote]

You know, I think all of the bailouts and stimuluses (stimuli?) were poorly conceived and badly implemented. I think all the benefits they provided could have been done for a whole lot less taxpayer money. But in the long run, the difference isn’t all that significant. We’d have a shitload of debt even if there were no stimulus or bailouts. They’d didn’t cause the debt.

What I really don’t know is if there is anything that could have been done that would have put us in better position today. I really haven’t seen a plan that I think would have worked any better. Nothing that would have turned the economic crisis in 2008 into booming GDP growth or lower unemployment. I don’t suspect there was any surgery for that tumor that would have made the ecomony healthy in 2011, or 2012 or 2013 for that matter. I’m open to ideas. I’d love to see something that jumps out at me and says “THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!”. I’m not saying it’s not out there. But I haven’t seen anyone propose it yet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]The point is not to go back in time. The point is to not blindly believe that everything you are told by the govt is true…

You have made it abundantly clear in many many posts that what was done in the past helped us to avert disaster. I have never been so sure of that. In fact I think it made the rich much richer, and kept a slow bleed going instead of just removing the tumor at what would have been great pain. Geitner has simply been following what Paulson did. Corruption is not dedicated to either party… It is alive and strong in both.

[/quote]

You know, I think all of the bailouts and stimuluses (stimuli?) were poorly conceived and badly implemented. I think all the benefits they provided could have been done for a whole lot less taxpayer money. But in the long run, the difference isn’t all that significant. We’d have a shitload of debt even if there were no stimulus or bailouts. They’d didn’t cause the debt.

What I really don’t know is if there is anything that could have been done that would have put us in better position today. I really haven’t seen a plan that I think would have worked any better. Nothing that would have turned the economic crisis in 2008 into booming GDP growth or lower unemployment. I don’t suspect there was any surgery for that tumor that would have made the ecomony healthy in 2011, or 2012 or 2013 for that matter. I’m open to ideas. I’d love to see something that jumps out at me and says “THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!”. I’m not saying it’s not out there. But I haven’t seen anyone propose it yet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]Do you think Geithner won’t engineer the same bailouts and Obama won’t approve such bailout?[/quote]

Geitner? In a heartbeat. Whether as a result of malevolence or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. (I think his history makes it pretty clear, his corruptness is exceeded only by his incompetence.) Obama, not so much. Though I see nothing on the horizon that would require any bailouts. The economy is not tanking. Growth has slowed to a trickle, but the only thing that continues to bleed is the unemployed worker. The financial bubbles burst years ago (with the exception of commodities, which slowly have receded from their mostly artificial highs). Nor are the government’s finances tanking. Hence the safety that the market migrated to was….the very asset that was recently downgraded.

Nothing happened.

[Author]

Posts