jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (33 posts)

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016

    by Joan McCarterFollow
    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary reports:

        "We have achieved significant tangible savings that have been passed on to beneficiaries," said Jonathan Blum, director of the Center for Medicare. "There's a tremendous opportunity for even greater savings." [...]

        The new numbers are based on savings so far: 32.5 million people used preventive services last year with no costs to themselves, senior citizens saved $3.2 billion for prescription drugs that fall in the "doughnut hole" in 2010 and 2011, and the government recovered $4.1 billion in 2011 in anti-fraud efforts.

        CMS also projected savings based on portions of the health care law that will be enacted soon, such as penalties for hospitals for readmitting patients for the same health episode, and paying providers based on quality standards.
    see the report
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/2 … nbsp-2016-

    I hope this is accurate

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That looks pretty accurate. You have to remember that there were 1000 different TV ads made to scare us about the Afforadable Healthcare Act. So to see the actual projections makes one leary. Problem is that it's going to be turned down by the Supreme Court in order to deregulate the healthcare business. They have no choice--it's their probusiness ideology. it's anyone's guess how high prices will go.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is not even close to being accurate. First consider the source.

      "Medicare's hospital insurance fund is projected to run out of money in 2024, which is unchanged from last year. The trustees pointed out that Medicare spending continues to rise. Last year Congress enacted a 2 percent cut in Medicare, which is the main reason the trust fund exhaustion date did not advance. The cut was large enough to absorb the increased spending.

      The trustees also warned that their own Medicare projections could be too rosy. They are making projections based on numbers fed to them by the administration. They are including President Barack Obama's health care law claim it will squeeze the full amount of its $500 billion cuts from the program. Problem is they are counting numbers that in reality will not be cut and therefore the expenses will reflect higher."

      http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

      What they did was to take certain areas and say that Obamacare will save them 200 billion dollars. Here is the facts while some of the cuts pointed out in The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are true, for example there may be 7.8 billion in saving from cuts to fraud and waste(that numbers is so incredibly low, there is so much more waste in the program) but what the report does is not add in all the new regulations and policies that will add costs Medicare and Medicaid. Just for one example was the Obama loophole that allows people with income up to 64,000 to qualify for the program, people that normally would never qualify.  Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. At $600 per month per person,,well you can do the math. Now add that to the "savings" and you will see that the real effect is a net cost or loss  at the taxpayers expense for Medicare.

      " Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.

      "I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.

      "This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."

      Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge of rules, there will be one national policy."

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Sure, save $200 Billion by 2016, but watch everything else within America's Economy skyrocket and cost citizens MORE than $200 Billion BEFORE 2016 even arrives.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And yet you provide not a shred of evidence that this will occur or has anything to do with Obamacare.

    2. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe any figures politicians hand out after the budget last year.

      Politicians were claiming a saving of x billion pounds but what they ACTUALLY meant to say was that the deficit will be x billion pounds lower, but will still be a deficit.

      In other words, they were still spending more then they could afford but it was x billion less then they were going to spend.

  3. TomBlalock profile image84
    TomBlalockposted 5 years ago

    In the end, the way many people feel and vote on a certain subject is how it effects them. Personally, I already have healthcare, and the bill won't effect it at all. My fiancee, however, has healthcare provided through her workplace that she chooses not to take because its cost to benefit ratio isn't what she considers to be in her favor. Under the new healthcare bill, she will be force to pay 15 dollars more a month, which she already cannot afford, for the exact same coverage.

    It might save medicare 200 billion, but it will cost us money, and while costing us additional money, also deprive us of the right to choose control over our own health insurance. No, ma'am, I think I'd prefer health care be reformed again, we can do better than this.

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. Some people would be willing to pay 1500 a month but can't get it and others would refuse to pay 15 dollars. You're right. It's all about the individual and his or her circumstances. Low income individuals would be subsidized, so I don't know how you came up the the additional cost.

      1. TomBlalock profile image84
        TomBlalockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Simple. She makes more than the low income bracket at 10.50 an hour, but not enough to have enough disposable income so that 15 dollars a month isn't a drain on what she has to spend. You can say "wow," if you like, but until you find yourself in her shoes, I'd recommend that you perhaps gain more perspective. I'll take a "wow" myself and ask who on the green earth is foolish enough to pay 1500 a month in health insurance costs? That's 18,000 a year, more than what someone who earns minimum wage and works full time makes in an entire year, with 3000 and some change to spare on luxuries. I do understand the pre-existing conditions deal is unfair, but with more and more people living at or just above poverty, the statement that some people pay more for healthcare than others make in gross earnings in a year is just ludicrous. If you spend that much on healthcare, its a choice, not a privilege. There are many good aspects of the bill, but also many more, and it all comes down to what helps you. This bill doesn't help me, because I have health care. It doesn't help my fiancee, because she already can't afford healthcare, and will pay more when the bill passes than her healthcare already was, under penalty of fine.

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We all have our opinions about this thing due to our circumstances. I cannot imagine that someone would have to pay more when the law would subsize low income people. And I say wow to about everything, especially since I'm dying because no one would sell me health insurance until it was too late. Your finance might be in that position when the law is overturned. I've watched too many people go without over the years not to appreciate that people tried to make this thing work but selfish people defeated it.

          1. TomBlalock profile image84
            TomBlalockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My personal opinion on that is that the bill helps you, and you should support it. Personally, I think anyone who wouldn't sell you health insurance when you needed it most needs, to, in the words of Garfield, be drug out into the street and shot. That is probably too good for them, in fact. Anyone willing to contribute to society and carry their load in life is entitled to a healthy body, or at least as healthy as modern science can make it. My condolences to you, stranger on the internet.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Tom,
              Have you read the bill? If you have, as I did, you would see the cuts coming to health care, the taxes and regulations that will begin in 2013 and 2014. We need a system to give coverage, not eliminate certain things, add others, and push people out of coverage and put them on Medicare, a system that covers even less than the insurance companies do

            2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
              Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks, Tom.

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you use a completely personally analysis without thought to the many others who will be covered by the bill.   You admitted at the beginning self-interest was the driving goal of most people.  I appreciate your honesty.

      Being herded into corporate coffers isn't my idea of real reform, but it's better than what we had before.    Millions more are going to be covered, and Medicaid will be expanded.

      1. Shanna11 profile image91
        Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ....and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

        Bad grammar aside, the point stands: Who's planning on paying for those millions of people and aide program expansion?

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Implicit in your question is that people who need health care and are too poor shouldn't be covered by others.  Do you think they should just go die?

          1. Shanna11 profile image91
            Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Um, no, it was NOT implicit in my question at all. Please don't assume awful things like that. It was an honest, simple question. I have no idea who's paying for the coverage or how much it will cost, and I most certainly do NOT want those who are too poor to just "go and die". Those were YOUR words, not mine.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What do they do if they have no money and no access without a change in the system?  Maybe they can beg on the street or at a Church.

              1. Shanna11 profile image91
                Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How should I know? I'm looking for an answer to my question, not another question. I'm not here to debate the ethics of the bill or those it will help. I'm just wondering if anyone knows what provisions in the bill state who pays for it.

                You have to weigh all aspects of policy to understand it and form an opinion on it. I don't know all the aspects and I'm trying to gather more information, not start a debate.

                1. profile image0
                  Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Do people have a right to medical treatment, regardless of their income?

                  1. Shanna11 profile image91
                    Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Everyone has a right to happy, healthy life, but you're looking to start a political debate and I just want an answer. Do you know who pays for the care or not? If you don't, then I'll go research it myself. I just wondered if anyone here knew.

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    It's helping me! I have 2 kids under 26...if this goes, they will be without healthcare coverage.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LMC,

      Coverage to 26 was always there, if one wanted it they had to pay a premium on their coverage. Obamacare now make it mandatory but if you think providers gave it for free, you are mistaken. Your rate increase that next year covered it, that is unless your boss pays for your coverage then you did not effect you.

  5. TomBlalock profile image84
    TomBlalockposted 5 years ago

    Sooner, stop badgering the lady. This kind of aggressive questioning only exacerbates the problem, and makes people seem unreasonable and impossible to deal with rationally. I'm sure she doesn't want people who can't afford healthcare to die, although the implication of "no free lunch" does imply that the should receive less quality of care than those who can afford a "paid lunch." I assume the funding will come from the federal government, since most socialized or semi-socialized funding does come from it.

    1. Shanna11 profile image91
      Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Honestly I only used the phrase "no free lunch" because I just read it in my econ textbook.

      I guess I meant by it that even though those who need more affordable health care will be able to get that more affordable health care (that would be the free lunch part of that phrase), someone is going to have to pay for it no matter what. I thought it maybe was a good segue into my question, but it led sooner to the wrong assumption, which was not my intention.

      Maybe I used the phrase wrong, I'm not sure.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay.  You just sounded like you were taking a really hard line stance.  I wasn't trying to be combative.  My grandma ran up 60,000 in medical bills at the end of her life in a 4 day period.  There is no way she, or anyone else in our family, would've been able to afford that.  I'm sure we aren't the only ones out there.

        You're right to ask who will pay.  The health care bill says there will be some cuts in Medicare (which is problematic), and also tanning taxes.  I don't know if it will actually increase the deficit or not.

        Someone does have to pay.  We could go to a universal system where everyone pays (instead of premiums, which are becoming increasingly ridiculous, taxes), and everyone will have access.  Or, taxes could be raised on the wealthy to pay for "Obamacare."

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Asking someone for their position based on previous statements the individual has said is not badgering.  People simply don't like to defend their positions.

      I got no answer to the question.

  6. TomBlalock profile image84
    TomBlalockposted 5 years ago

    No free lunch simply means that you cannot get something for nothing, often times with the added implication that someone expects something for nothing. It fits, in a way, but with all the "entitlement mentality" quotes tossed out by my fellow conservatives, it is hard to differentiate an innocuous comment from one that is barbed. My apologies if we've taken you for meaning something you didn't. At any rate, I think its about time I read this article which has generated so many comments.

    1. Shanna11 profile image91
      Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I definitely didn't even consider the entitlement spin on that phrase.... I was just trying to think like an "economist". My econ textbook is leading me astray.... tongue

      1. TomBlalock profile image84
        TomBlalockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nah. Different ways of thinking are a good thing. I've simply become so used to certain comments having a certain bias that I make assumptions that I should not. Also, at least your economy textbook doesn't pretend that John Maynard Keynes is really satan in disguise.

        1. Shanna11 profile image91
          Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, I don't think most econ textbooks would dare say anything bad about Keynes or Smith or the rest of the great economists. Economists try to think impartially and consider every idea or theory carefully and rationally and Keynes's economic ideas were rational and made sense.  I'm trying to practice looking at every angle before coming to a conclusion on policies that deal with economics- But I don't think most people are used to those who won't necessarily take up one side of the argument or another at first.

  7. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    Some people don't like to face reality.  But here is an article about medical bills bankrupting people.  http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/heal … =PM:HEALTH

 
working