If we do not repeal Obama Care...
YET!
!
Hi Wilderness. How are you doing otherwise?
I am truly sorry to read in your post that "Last year my tax bill grew, not $200, but $1200 due to Obamacare."
However, it seems to me that something is missing. Your post indicates your tax bill grew $1200 last year due to personal circumstances and a decision you made, one unrelated to Obamacare. Obviously, the ACA did not create the IRS regulation that treats those withdrawals as earned income. Had you withdrawn funds from an ordinary savings account that would not have happened. But, if you withdrew from a tax sheltered account holding pre-tax contributions, such as a traditional IRA, then you made the decision , not Obamacare, that led to an increase in your earned income and to the loss of your health care premium subsidies. Those funds would have ultimately been treated and taxed as ordinary income regardless of whether the money was spent for health care, to buy a car or to repair your roof. It may have been the only choice available to you, but, never the less, it was a decision you made and certainly not one forced on you by Obamacare.
Based upon the facts as I know them, I can not agree with the statement "Oh, it's a great plan, all right...for anyone already getting insurance from their employer. For anyone else it's a total flop while the insurance companies rake in the dough."
The stated goal of Obamacare was to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by providing access to affordable health care insurance. In this regard, the ACA continues to be successful, continues to cost 20 percent less than originally projected, and continues on a fiscally sound footing toward reducing the budget deficit and the national debt in each year of the next decade. {1}
It is also hard to accept the broad, unsupported declaration that Obamacare is a “flop”, which I find is easier to say then it is to prove. Granted, it projects a negative connotation without having to supply any facts. More importantly, the personal anecdotes posted do not reflect the experiences of the other 270 million non-elderly Americans affected by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
However, this does raise a legitimate question. How many Americans actually have only negative things to say about Obamacare?
The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll provided the answer in March, 2015, when it found only one out of four Americans (22 percent) reported the law hurt them in some way. One out of five, however, reported the law helped them (19 percent) and a majority of the public (57 percent) said that the health care law has had no impact, good or bad, on their family. Hence, a full 78 percent reported not having had a negative effect from the law.
It is also a fact that only 14 percent said the law caused their health insurance cost to rise. Another 4 percent said the law made it more difficult to get the health care they needed while only 2 percent reported the law caused someone in their family to lose insurance coverage. {2}
I find, one full year after the implementation of most of the law’s major provisions, more Americans are saying they are in favor of Congress keeping the law as it stands now or expanding it compared to the number of Americans that advocate constricting or repealing the law. To me, this does not indicate the law is a “flop” particularly when the expressed sentiments of all respondents are nearly identical to the opinions voiced by declared independent voters who are more likely to judge the law based on its merits and not on blind ideology. {3}
It is hard to agree with the claim that insurance companies “rake” in the dough without seeing an iota of supporting data. It is hard because I know that the ACA controls how insurance companies use the premiums they collect and it places limits on the profits they make. This provision is called the 80/20 Rule, sometimes referred to as the Medical Loss Ratio. It requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on the health care of policy holders including quality improvement activities other than administrative, overhead, and marketing costs. Insurance companies selling to large groups (typically more than 50 employees) must meet a higher standard to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on care and quality improvement. All overhead, executive compensation and net profit are restricted to 15-20 percent of total premiums. {4}
In one year, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBSTN) spent only 76.6 percent of a total of $253,702,194 in premium dollars on health care and other activities to improve heath care quality. Under the terms of the ACA, they were required to refund 3.4 percent of every premium dollar to policy holders. In that year, the company reported...
76.6% Claims and quality improvement expenses,
3.4% Rebates,
18.9% Administrative costs (i.e. claims processing, marketing, broker commissions/sales, fraud prevention), and
1.1% Net Income (profit).
After complying with the law, BCBSTN issued 3.4 percent in rebates and realized a net profit of 1.1 percent. {5}
Is this example typical industry wide from coast to coast? Probably not! But those that claim insurance companies simply “rake” in extraordinary profits following the enactment of the ACA are refusing to acknowledge that the market has grown by 19 million Americans who did not have access to health care insurance before Obamacare.
{1} http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … imates.pdf
{2} http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-findin … arch-2015/ Fig. 4
{3} http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-findin … arch-2015/ Fig. 14
{4} https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care- … te-review/
{5} http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/277419 … -insuranceThanks for your detailed comments, Wilderness. You fed me a lot to chew on and even more to digest. Your comments have been fair and honest. I hope mine live up to the same standard. I have used a rhetorical question to separated topics.
A million harmed v. 16.5 million newly insured?
I truly welcome and respect your opinions even when I do not agree. "A trillion dollars spent, with the net result being to harm a million people. Doesn't sound so good when put that way, does it? And yet you're touting it as a great success!"
I would prefer to see comments with facts mostly because distorting what I said accomplishes nothing. Earlier, I said the respondents to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll in March, 2015, reported the ACA hurt them in some way. I went on the explain that 14 percent, who already had some form of insurance I might add, said the law caused their health insurance cost to rise. Another 4 percent, who also had some form of insurance before, said the law made it more difficult to get the health care they needed while only 2 percent reported the law caused someone in their family, who obviously already had health care insurance, to lose their former insurance coverage.
You did not say how you extrapolated one million hurt from my remarks but that is really not important. It is important to notice, however, that in all of these cases the respondents were previously protected by health care insurance before switching to new policies. Therefore, when you say Obamacare had "the net result being to harm a million people. Doesn't sound so good when put that way, does it?" your straw man response conveniently ignores the FACT that Obamacare now protects 16.5 million Americans who DID NOT have insurance before. One million hurt v. 16.5 million newly insured. Now, does that sound better? {1}
Do I tout Obamacare as a great success?
Not at all, although I do demonstrate when necessary that the law is far from being the “flop” you imagine. As a national program, it is a mixed bag of noteworthy, as well as historic, achievements and an assortment of still unrealized goals. I merely present facts in response to those who only see negativity. Facts that some find unpleasant to face, perhaps, but facts anyone may refute should they be untrue or exaggerated.
Social Security has steadily fallen?
Please clarify this statement about SS having steadily fallen. "The same IRA that has been pushed by government for decades and virtually demanded as SS has steadily fallen."
The average monthly Social Security benefit
paid to retired workers has steadily increased from $22.71 per month in 1940 to $1262 in 2012. {2}
Penalized for earning money?
Please clarify the statement that you were penalized for earning the money you have now decided to use to pay your bills: "So now I not only pay taxes on it (always a part of the program) but also get penalized for earning the money in decades past."
Actually, far from being penalized, your traditional IRA has rewarded you by making it possible to defer income taxes on past earnings until you have a need to spend the funds. Further, you enjoy the added benefits from being able to invest the full non-taxed value of all the sheltered earnings so as to yield additional investment income that is also tax deferred until needed. Now that you need the money, a day of reckoning is at hand but there is absolutely no “penalty” except when distributions are taken before age 59-1/2. There is no penalty, only the necessity to treat traditional IRA withdrawals in the same calender year as income after “decades” of avoiding income tax. Simply stated, you are blaming Obamacare for your decision to put all of your retirement eggs in the same basket and further blaming Obamacare for your decision to withdraw those funds to pay your bills.
Premium decreases: there isn’t any or just too low to report?
You also asked two questions about premium deductions: "14% found their insurance cost to rise, but I don't see any numbers that indicate a price decrease for anybody. Is that because there isn't any or just because it is too low to report?"
Wilderness, both of your assumptions are wrong! With all due respect, if you looked for an answer, you looked in the wrong places! You will find a 9.3 percent premium reduction for the Boise, Idaho, region in the list below.
Monthly premiums in 2015 for the second lowest cost Silver plan covering a 40 year old non-smoker earning $30,000 a year have declined before subsidies in the following markets:
Arizona Phoenix -10.0%
Colorado, Denver -15.6%
Connecticut, Hartford -5.0%
Idaho, Boise -9.3%
Indiana, Indianapolis -7.0%
Massachusetts, Boston -7.5%
Mississippi, Jackson -25.5%
Montana, Billings -6.6%
N. Hampshire, Manchester -14.6%
N. Mexico, Albuquerque -11.8%
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia -10.7%
Rhode Island Providence -11.2%
In addition, there are 11 more markets in which premiums declined by under 5%. {3}
Apparently unknown to you, outside your neighborhood, your city, your own state line, beyond your horizon and the range of your personal experiences, a great many Americans are feeling the positive effects of the ACA. This is a factual reality that can not be diminished by individual, uniquely personal anecdotes.
For example, a caption in the New York Times on July 16, 2013 announced Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%.
“State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York." {4}
It seems, Wilderness, that only negative news about Obamacare is reaching you.
My reference to premium refunds is misleading?
The following statement is totally false and rooted in another flawed assumption rather than from sound research: "Your reference {5} also is just a trifle misleading as it refers to operations in 2011; long before Obamacare was implemented."
When the ACA was enacted in 2010, some of its provisions took effect in 2011. Please refer to the following quote from The Washington Times on July 23, 2014, which confirms (1) my “reference {5}” is factual and quite accurate and (2) your grossly inaccurate assumptions are in fact more than “a trifle misleading”
“Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced that a relatively obscure facet of Obamacare has returned $9 billion to consumers since 2011.
The provision known as the ‘80-20 rule’ requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on patient care or quality improvements or else cough up a refund. The agency’s report said the recouped dollars from all insurance markets resulted in an average refund of $80 per American family." {5}
Are health care costs rising dramatically?
I think your hounds are barking up the wrong tree if you believe you can correlate gross health care cost with the declining number of uninsured Americans. You asked, "What has the cost of health care done in the past year as opposed to prior years. Not insurance, but care itself. One should expect it to rise dramatically as far more people are now insured and using the care system,"
Historically, the cost of health care has been soaring year after year for decades. As a result, more attention is focused lately on the rate of increase each year rather than on the actual number.
It is too early to look for 2014 data, but in 2013 health care spending increased by 3.6 percent to reach $2.9T or $9,255 per person. From another perspective, costs have been a steady 17.4 percent of GDP in each of the five years since 2009. {6} {7}
The actual rates of annual increases have cooled down to a relatively modest range of 3 to 4 percent since the ACA was enacted. Members of the current administration suggest this is a result of Obamacare, however, most analysts identify the great recession and the sluggish economic recovery as the major factors. Still, the shift in the health care paradigm, increased competition among insurers, and growing efficiency have had a minor, yet undeniable, role in taming the 6.5 percent nationwide average annual increase seen from 1991 through 2009. By the way, in Idaho, the average annual increase was 7.9 percent during the same period. {8} Current forecasts predict 6.0 percent average increases each year moving forward.
Number of health care workers?
I am happy to help in your quest to count health care workers. "I can't even find the number of health care workers (which should also go up) for last year."
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tracks health care workers as a group that includes ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and nursing/residential care facilities. The number of employees in this category was reported to be 14.9 million in March, 2015, up from 14.6 million the year before. {9}
I apologize, Wilderness, to you and to everyone else, if my reply is overly wordy. I try hard to balance quantity and quality. Thanks for listening, thanks for asking, and thanks for keeping an open mind.
{1} http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … /24852325/
{2} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0780010.html
{3} http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie … ketplaces/ Table 1.
{4} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/healt … p&_r=0
{5} http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
{6} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … rical.html
{7} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … EGDP13.zip
{8} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … tables.pdf
{9} http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Table B-1.Good evening, Wilderness. I will not respond to remarks about spin and forgetting to give the rest of the story. I do not believe those comments contribute to a cordial conversation.
Other than that, I think the post above contains both good and bad elements. After considering all of the facts I posted, I am happy to see there is no mention of any being untrue. That’s good! On the other hand (as Tevye would say), I see a great many invalid assumptions that I believe are inaccurate or untrue. That’s bad!
The first example is the statement: "22% were hurt by Obamacare, and 19% helped. [Edit: my cited data] 22-19=3% net, and 350,000,000*3%=one million in round numbers.[Edit: your math]"
Since declaring Obamacare is a “total flop”, every attempt to justify this claim has included a false assumption. I am guessing now, but I think the 350 million number in your math represents the total population of the country. If so, the problem with this assumption is two fold:
(1) the entire U.S. population was not effected by Obamacare. The number of Americans (non-elderly, previously insured and uninsured) effected by Obamacare in 2014 was 270 million, and
(2) 3% of 350 million does not equal 1 million. {1}
In either case, both the arithmetic and the assumptions are utterly false.
In lieu of meaningful information, the paragraph that follows attempts first to introduce and then to attack a straw man you created. "The question then becomes how an already overloaded care system, without enough employees, can cover an additional 5% of the patient load with only an increase of 2% in the labor force? It would seem that insurance does NOT equal care as those newly insured are not getting the care. Just insurance." [Bold font added] I do not believe that the newly insured are not getting health care. Please supply evidence to support your claim that the 16 million newly insured are not receiving the health care they need.
The next paragraph contradicts your own straw man. "However, that's not entirely fair, either as some uninsured got care from ER rooms without paying. Or from free clinics in a relative handful of cases." So, it now seems you are saying 16 million newly insured Americans do not translate into 16 million new users being added to the health care system. This is not only true but it makes the calculations to compare new users and the available workforce quite useless. The ultimate number of newly insured under Obamacare, I will add, is not expected to exceed 25 million in the next decade. {2}
I also submit that assuming the number of health care workers must expand in one year is another unrealistic stretch of the imagination. Medical professionals and support personnel are recognized as one of the fastest growing labor sectors in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported last June that the nation’s health care workforce grew by nearly 1 million since the ACA was enacted in March, 2010. Last year, the industry added 400 thousand jobs. If the number of care givers continues to expand at this rate, the industry will add another 1 million workers every 2.5 years. This is math based on facts and the numbers are far more reliable than those generated by false assumptions.
Since you claimed the ACA is "a total flop while the insurance companies rake in the dough," you must have plenty of data to prove your statement is true. Please share your figures with us!
Some hard data will be a lot more meaningful than oblique comments like, "‘returning’ 9 billion while charging 100 billion isn't much savings." Not a word in this statement addresses the original point that the ACA contains provisions that limit all the overhead, executive compensation and the net profit of insurance providers to 20 percent or, in some cases, 15 percent of their revenue from premiums. {3}
One has to wonder why $9 billion in refunds is being characterized as a “savings” in this strand. This amount was not “savings.” The Washington Times clearly indicated that under the law insurers, who did not pay out 80% of the premiums collected for benefits or health related quality improvement activities, were required to refund the un-used portions to their policy holders.
{4}
While I provide real verifiable facts about refunds to Americans who actually paid premiums, your post talks about the Earned Income Credit (EIC) “where ‘refunds’ are given on taxes that were never paid.” There is no connection between the EIC and the Medical Loss Ratio in the ACA but it does serve as another straw man.
I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by “while charging $100B.” There is no explanation given that I can see. Perhaps it was meant to imply $9B is an insignificant amount. If so, it certainly does not diminish the intent or the impact of the 80/20 Rule.
I hear you loud and clear. You do not like the ACA even though more than half of the Americans polled are saying Congress should keep the law as it stands now or expand it. {5}
All of the individual personal anecdotes about sour experiences are not consistent with the benefits being reported in the 29 states, both red and blue, plus the District of Columbia where Medicaid programs have been expanded to include low-income families. You may sincerely believe the law is a “total flop” but in other states, the results of Obamacare clearly demonstrate this is one claim that is far from being true.
{1}
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … imates.pdf Table 2.
{2} ibid.
{3} https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care- … te-review/
{4} http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
{5} http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-findin … arch-2015/ Fig. 14
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago
0 OMG. How could that ever happen?!?
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago0
We are not WE. We are individuals responsible for ourselves and our loved ones and NOT strangers. WE are rich enough? WE have our priorities screwed up?
Is self-survival a screwed up priority?
If more people took responsibility for themselves, THEY would not need OTHERS to pay for THEIR health care insurance.
Is there some problem with actual family members helping one another, rather than mommy/daddy Government?
(The real problem is this: Mommy Daddy Govt. will/has become worse than Mommy/ Daddy Govt.
It will/has become Tyrannosaurus Rex Govt.)
It is the PRINCIPLE of the matter. Where is that money even going?
I should know where that money of mine is going.
Maybe I would give that money to a local church or charity or homeless person camped out under a freeway bridge in LA...
But, NOOOOOO…..
!
To become conscious of what is right/accurate/true is half the battle. The other half of the batttle is to stop trying to be hip and cool!
(You already are. Stop trying so hard.)
You are right! If my son wasn't forced to pay $1,200 for others, he could pay for his own baby's medical needs, whether insurance, care or both.
Or save up for his college education!
( Since his baby is quite robust.
)
May I please take this opportunity to remind everyone that I raised two children without ANY insurance what-so-ever!
Isn't that astounding? !
No, when you consider that all the generations before us didn't either!!!!!
Do you think I should pay two dollars a month and get govt. insurance coverage in order not to be fined?
If I do, I will be paying $24.00 more than the fine. (If the fine remains the same…which it won't. It's going up according to my tax lady.) At least if something catastrophic/expensive happens I will be covered…
right?
-
< if those who are popping out condom slip-ups would A b s t a i n…(until safely married…)>
<">> won't happen">
Girls just have to step away from the testosterone…
Whats so hard about that?
Oh, they also have to step away from dispensers of free condoms…
(And maybe adults could stop freely dispensing them…)
Surely, girls can WISE UP!Yet, you are for free condoms.
In time, the school of hard knocks will teach us… but not if the govt. enables free unmarried sex with no consequences !!!!
What will it take?
If the govt. stopped facilitating these births…
Horrors… survival of the fittest and most aware… sounds so heartless.
What are mothers teaching their girls????
Case study:
I know a girl, (young woman,) living in her bedroom in her childhood home. She got pregnant and had the baby which she is raising in her room. Well, the mother of the 34 year old found birth control pills in her daughter's purse… (the first child was a birth control silp-up…) If this woman/mother of 34 gets pregnant again, she has said she does not love her current boyfriend and will never marry him… She will have to have an abortion... or give it up for adoption. Knowing them, they'll just put another crib into the small crowded bedroom … 'cuz the two year old wants a sister... like Elsa and Anna…
AUGH!!!!~
What does the mother/father say to their daughter?
NOTHING!!!
Related Discussions
- 22
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money wher
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money where there arehospitals and/or other medical facilities that offer very low cost and/or free health care?The "purpose" that President Obama "intended" for his to be implemented...
- 152
Obamacare increase the avability of healthcare in what ways?
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
- 27
Obama Care and it's Effects
I have been retired for five years and since Obama Care has been in effect, I have realized significant changes in my medicare plan. My out of pocket drug costs are much lower now. The donut hole is closing and will be closed in 2014. (That's the amount insurance pays up to limit and...
- 75
Obama Care and State Exchanges
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
- 133
Congress Voted To Repeal Obamacare
Trey Gowdy posted this article link on Facebook minutes ago. It is the beginning of the end of Obamacare and a legacy.* http://thirdestatenewsgroup.com/breakin … d-to-know/The repeal legislation will go to the Senate next. A complete repeal is expected according to the article, and...
- 26
Obama Care--A Trojan Horse
The Trojan horse that is Obama Care has slipped by the gates of American consciousness and has started to disgorge its abominbale contents into the grind that is our daily medical lives. Can we survivie it without being lacerated into a thousand different pieces?