OK Biden/Dem voters what now?

The act is put on for you. You start to show you're not excited by it and they'll stop.

 

nope, it only started to rise again when republicans took power again in 2016

 

As the Obamacare regulations came online.

 

as republicans tried to sabotage it

that said, a public option would have been better, but republicans fought that, said we should give private health care a second chance to do better

republicans were wrong, so time for a public option

all you are doing is proving Obama was right all along

 

They didn't though. And a public option would be ten times worse.

 

Would you mind trying better at spelling here. I think you are having sticky fingers and it is hard to read your posts with all the misspelled words.

But to your point, your original argument that I replied to was gradiose and very generalized. Either be more specific or specifically state you are being overtly general.

you need to understand what you are reading and quoting here. When you file bankruptcy, you must include all debt. But certain increases in debt, unexpected increases in debt, is what most analysts need to look at. Let me give you an example. For instance, your gross worth of all assets is $750k. this includes house, car, and other properties you have including whatever earned and unearned income you receive on an annual basis. Prior to the unexpected event, your average debt was $400k including car loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc. Now, you all of a sudden were diagnosed with cancer, began treatments, etc. After three years of treatments, your medical debt is not $1.2 million. You have maxed out your credit cards to pay for the expense. Your income has dropped. Your mortgage/line of equity remains constant, etc. Now you are filing for bankruptcy in debt relief. The principle reason for that filing would be none other than medical debt even though you have other debts as well. And that is the reality in Today's Healthcare America. American healthcare is one of the most expensive in the world. We have the most out-of-pocket expenses compared to other OECD countries. We have the highest or one of the highest medical costs per capita among all the OECD countries. Our total healthcare spending is about 16% of GDP, which is nearly 5 percentage points above the next country, Germany. The links below confirm my thesis.

I read the article and the "study." Taking 25 to 64-year-olds who were to the hospital for the first time in three years." This is a bogus study. For starters, the hospital stay is not going to be the biggest determining factor. Healthcare is ongoing, continuously ongoing. If you have CKD, chronic kidney disease, because it was discovered you have a rare condition that required hospitalization all of a sudden, then you will be in the hospital for a short stay. But the treatments will be ongoing until you either have a transplant or you are deceased. That can take years, depending on your blood work, how well you take your medicines, and how diligent you are when taking dialysis. All of that costs. Insurance will help. You automatically qualify for Medicare/Medicaid once you are on CKD. But those costs can rise significantly the longer you are on dialysis. Having a rare kidney disease may be rare, but for people who have CKD because it could be any number of reasons is not. And if you only look at rare diseases causing CKD, then it is an incomplete study. And that is exactly what the study is, incomplete.


https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...8V6vxRg4m-ac-2YYKt-zSBqy2idY82FwaAihxEALw_wcB

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org.... dollars, PPP adjusted, 2020 or nearest year

https://www.ohiowvlaw.com/blog/2022...debt is the No,time jobs and health insurance.

 

LOL, you ok bruh?

 

ten times worse than what?(if it was, you could choose your expensive private care, if that was your choice)

for most Americans, a public option would be much better, for the rich... they would just keep private care

 

I doubt that sincerely.

 

~ This lady will retain her congressional seat...

​

 

Never know unless you try.
Certainly most politicians like to play on peoples hopes and fears. Can't see yours being so different.

 

The "public option" would be designed to put the private out of business and then the only option and ten times worse.

 

They play on peoples' hopes and fears to be sure. But they don't hold the similar agendas. They are completely divided.

 

It's called tablet typing and auto correct.

It specifically addressed the claims being made.

More so then you as usual.

And those are not the ones filing bankruptcy which includes medical bills so this is entirely specious. And please practice some breverity and to the point responses. This refutted nothing I posted.

Quite the opposite compared to the extrapolated surveys others use.

 

Too much reality for you I take it Look man, it's pretty common information today, and quite frankly I'm troubled you still cling to the propaganda they rolled out in 2020 YIKES!!

 

I didn't mean to imply they had similar agendas, Indeed they divide and conquer.
What I was hoping for is that YOU the voters look at each other and seek common ground instead of letting them sell you the differences.

 

Seriously, you ok bruh?

 

The reality is that not only did Obamacare itself cost substantially less than we were told it would, the subsequent deceleration of health care cost growth means that all of American health care ended up costing less than anyone expected. In the years after Obamacare passed, Medicare ended up costing less, Medicaid ended up costing less, and private health insurance ended up costing less. The cost curve bent and virtually everybody benefited. This is one of the most important stories of the past decade plus!

 

As I cited above it drove up the cost of insurance immensely to the point people could no longer afford it. FAR more people have suffered under the ACA than the alleged 30 million claimed.

Obamacare Has Doubled the Cost of Individual Health Insurance

Eleven years after the passage of Obamacare, Americans buying health insurance under the law are still worse off financially than before the health law was enacted.

Obamacare more than doubled health insurance costs for workers and families, with the national average premium increasing by 129 percent from 2013 to 2019.

Recent years have shown that costs drop when states can use regulatory relief to provide options tailored to the unique needs of citizens with high health costs.





https://www.heritage.org/health-car...-doubled-the-cost-individual-health-insurance

 

Except not really, no.

First of all, I cited national health expenditures in particular because that reflects what the American health care system as a whole costs, not any particular market segment. It's indisputable that overall health care costs grew at historic lows after the ACA passed (cumulatively saving Americans a couple trillion dollars). And if you look at those costs as a percentage of GDP--since that's what the "bending the cost curve" concept was all about--the numbers are equally striking, as health care makes up roughly the same percentage of GDP today as it did when the ACA passed twelve years ago, something absolutely unprecedented over any ~decade-long period since they started tracking health care costs more than half a century ago.

Now, if you want to zoom in the on individual market in particular, that's fine. But one of the most notable things about the individual market is that it's small. The percentage of Americans buying their own insurance has always been in the single digits. It's larger today than it was pre-ACA, but still relatively tiny. It's never had more than 30 million people in it (even today!), so pointing to individual market trends to claim "far more people have suffered...than 30 million" makes no sense. The vast majority of privately insured Americans are in employer-sponsored coverage, not individual market coverage, and employer-based coverage saw some of the lowest premium increases on record after the ACA passed.

But did premiums go up for individual market coverage? Well, yes and no. If you just took your numbers are face value, and add in the fact that 2023 premiums are actually lower than 2019 premiums, you're saying premiums doubled in ten years, suggesting average annual premium increases of ~7% or so. Not great, but that would actually be relatively low for the individual market by historical standards.

But of course the reality is that the products priced in 2013 are not the same as those being priced in 2014 and afterwards. The former were loosely regulated, not accessible to those with health needs and pre-existing conditions, and tended to be significantly skimpier than employer-based plans, offering fewer benefits and paying out less than current bronze plans do for those benefits they did cover. Plans since 2014 have been more comprehensive (broadly similar to the employer-based plans most people enjoy) and accessible to any willing buyer, not just the youngest and healthiest. If you made an apples-to-apples comparison that controls for the actual products being sold, you actually would find that pound-for-pound, premium costs did decrease when the ACA took effect in 2014.

Of course, offering better coverage to people who actually need care and replacing skimpy coverage with better coverage does cost more in the aggregate, but the other piece of that deal was the feds now subsidize those insurance pools via means-tested contributions to enrollees' premium liabilities and out-of-pocket costs. So for millions of people they (1) have access to better insurance today than they did before the ACA, if they had access at all, and/or (2) they pay less for it now than they did before thanks to the financial assistance.

Some small fraction (again, the percentage of the American public is in the low single digits here) of the country did come out behind because they buy in the individual market, made too much for financial assistance, and were healthy enough to not benefit from the enhanced consumer protections and more comprehensive coverage. Those are the people some of Biden's reforms to the ACA, first in the American Rescue Plan and now in the Inflation Reduction Act, are meant to help.

But the reality is that most people buying in the individual market have come out well ahead under the ACA, even before Biden's reforms.

 

Except yes really..........what it cost the American PEOPLE out of their pockets. You know that no one will pay more than $2500 for insurance the ACA was supposed to give everyone. It was a TOTAL FAILURE at lower the cost of insurance.

Then you should have no problem posting this data that shows health care no only grew slower but fell as was promised if the ACA was passed.

Companies buy private insurance and it two went up dramatically like individual but thanks for showing yours and Obamas care and concern for private business people and contractors who buy their own insurance is this where to you tell them to get screwed?

How about you post your numbers that refute them.

My like most employer based when for good to excellent to HUGE out of pocket and deductibles like the individual.

Prove people got better coverage, doctors stopped taking it and their cost of compliance increased.

I gave you the cost you have posted NOHTING.


The ACA: Trillions? Yes. A Revolution? No.

Did the Affordable Care Act (ACA) usher in a revolution in US health care? Ten years after the law was enacted, it is fair to say that the ACA has fallen short of achieving key health reform goals.

Arguably, the primary focus of the ACA was to increase the number of Americans with health insurance coverage. New subsidies for families buying health insurance on their own through the ACA’s exchanges and expanded eligibility for Medicaid brought health coverage to millions of lower-income households who otherwise would have remained uninsured. New federal rules requiring private insurers to offer coverage on the same terms to everyone guaranteed that individuals with preexisting conditions could buy insurance without benefit exclusions or higher premiums.

The impact of those subsidies and regulations was dramatic. Before the ACA, the uninsured rate hovered around 15 percent of the population. By 2018, that rate dropped to 8.5 percent, resulting in 18 million more people with coverage.

Efforts to achieve other policy goals were less successful. The ACA did not stem high and rapidly rising health care costs care for all Americans. Delivery system reforms advanced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center have shown disappointing results, and mechanisms intended to rein in federal costs have been dropped. Despite the promise of affordability, consumers continue to cite medical expenses as their No. one economic concern.

Cost Growth, Pre- And Post-ACA
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised voters that his health care plan would cut annual premiums by $2,500. That estimate assumed that the plan would produce savings of at least $200 billion a year, or about 8 percent of national health spending projected for 2009. Savings were attributed to policies that would reduce insurers’ administrative expenses, expand use of health information technology (addressed in the 2009 economic stimulus legislation rather than the ACA), and expand prevention and chronic disease management programs.

National health expenditure (NHE) data show that such savings have not been realized.

National health spending increased from $2.60 trillion in 2010 to $3.65 trillion in 2018. As a share of the national economy, health spending grew from 17.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 17.7 percent between 2010 and 2018. Some of that increase is due to the expansion of health care coverage, which increased access to services for newly covered families.

Thus, the ACA did not reduce the level of health care spending. Did it slow spending growth? The NHE grew 5.6 percent a year between 2003 and 2010; growth slowed to 4.4 percent a year between 2010 and 2018. However, that comparison ignores the sharp decline in general price inflation following the 2007–09 “Great Recession.” Measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, health care spending grew at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent between 2003 and 2010, and 2.8 percent between 2010 and 2018.

A more precise comparison would account for the ongoing slowdown in US population growth. Inflation-adjusted health care spending per capita has accelerated from 1.7 percent a year between 2003 to 2010 to 2.1 percent between 2010 and 2018.

Other factors contribute to health care spending growth, including the introduction of new treatments and changes in factors affecting population health. Nonetheless, it is implausible to suggest that the ACA has bent the cost curve down.

More
High Premiums And Deductibles In The Individual Market
Weak Delivery System Reforms
Vanishing Offsets

Here
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200406.93812/

 

The ACA helps millions of people pay for coverage in the individual marketplace. That's the immediate lowering of premium expenses for people that it was designed to do and it does that well.

The broader issue of tackling health system-wide costs was always aimed at bending the cost curve (i.e., slowing cost growth, particularly relative to overall economic growth).

It didn't. Here's the average annual growth in per enrollee costs for employer-sponsored health insurance:

1990-1999: 6.3%
2000-2009: 7.7%
2010-2019: 2.9%

Cost growth fell markedly for employer-based coverage after the ACA passed. That's not a phenomenon that was limited to employer plans, of course, as I already mentioned ESI just benefited from a system-wide health cost slowdown that impacted everybody.

As I already said, most people buying insurance on their own came out ahead. Many of the remainder benefit from Biden's ACA reforms.

My point is that your argument is that premiums rose at ~7%/year for a decade, which wouldn't be anomalous at all. As I just mentioned, employer-based coverage did that throughout the 2000s. The difference from that situation is that the individual market numbers you're talking about reflect a one-time discontinuous jump in 2014 when coverage got substantially more generous and consumer protections kicked in for folks with pre-existing conditions. So that's a lot of extra bang for the buck.

You've been arguing that after the ACA individual plans paid out more in benefits per enrollee than they did before. And I've agreed with you!

 

Have no idea where you go the numbers you presented but I already showed you otherwise the cost of the premiums skyrocketed along with deductibles and out of pocket caps. The point is it did NOT cut or hold cost as it was supposed to do in individual or employer provided markets. I have not argued the ACA paid out more in benefits what I have argued as the data shows millions gave up benefits because they could no longer afford the coverage. Obama granted better insurance to 18 million at a cost to exponentially more. ACA failed at it's basic premise.


Average family premiums for employer-based health insurance have jumped 47% in the last decade, outpacing wage growth and inflation
PUBLISHED THU, NOV 11 202111:35 AM ESTUPDATED THU, NOV 11 20213:27 PM EST

You’re not imagining the growing pinch to your budget from the cost of your workplace health insurance.

Over the last decade, family premiums for employer-sponsored coverage have jumped 47%, according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. That rate outpaces both wage growth (31%) and inflation (23%) over the same time period.

Annual premiums for family coverage this year reached an average $22,221, with workers contributing an average $5,969 toward the cost and employers paying the rest, the report says. The amount is 4% more than 2020.

Deductibles — amounts that you pay out of pocket for services before your insurance starts paying — also have jumped 68.4% since 2011, to an average $1,669 from $991.

This year, 85% of covered workers have a deductible in their plan, up from 74% a decade ago. At companies with under 200 employees, average deductibles are 70% higher than those at larger firms ($2,379 vs. $1,397).

Roughly 155 million people rely on employer-sponsored coverage, according to Kaiser’s research. The share of employers offering health benefits — 59% — has remained largely unchanged since 2011. However, the larger the company, the more likely it is to offer a health plan.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/pre...urance-have-jumped-47percent-in-10-years.html

 

The numbers are from the National Health Expenditures tables (Historical | CMS), specifically row 55 (Per Enrollee Estimates of Private Health Insurance for ESI) of Table 21 (Expenditures, Enrollment and Per Enrollee Estimates of Health Insurance: United States, Calendar Years 1987-2020).

But even the KFF/HRET survey results your article cites make clear that premiums did not skyrocket for employ-based coverage. They found a 49% increase for family coverage over a decade, or under 4% growth per year. That's lower than the 113% increase in premiums that survey found for family coverage over the prior decade (2001-2011). And if you look at the results from any given year in the 2011-2021 period, you'll see KFF/HRET calling out that premium growth for employer-based coverage was at or near all-time lows in multiple years after the ACA passed.

How can a drop in premium growth be considered "skyrocketing"?

Same thing with out-of-pocket spending, which averaged 4.8% annual growth from 2000-09 (pre-Obamacare) and 3.1% annual growth from 2010-19 (post-ACA)--refer back to the NHE tables, particularly Table 3 for those numbers.

The consistent story is that health care cost growth fell after the ACA passed. And that trickled through to everything, from a lower-than-expected price tag for the ACA to lower Medicare and Medicaid costs for the taxpayers to cover to a slowdown of premium increases for commercial coverage.

If individual market plans don't pay out more in benefits per member, why exactly do you believe per member costs are higher? These are two different ways of saying the same thing.

 

well, biden already said he's not going to change anything. I mean why stop screwing over America now, when they keep edging closer to their socialist dream, that they did to California, for the rest of us in the United States of America? Or should I say divided states of America? because of democrat politicians?