StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) Your insurance company already knows, directly or indirectly, what range of salary you make. That's why people making more at a company pay more for their insurance than people that make less (at least they do in my plan). Why would that result in the end of group plans? I work for one of the largest employers in the world. Our group health plan does not depend on how much you make. I've honestly never heard of that anywhere. You are, oddly, arguing in favor of socialism here. You're arguing for progressive pricing for the same service based on your income level.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) And where are those subsidies coming from? Here's a hint, it isn't free money. Various places (cadillac plan taxes, medical device taxes, etc.), definitely not directly from premium increases, which is what you were talking about.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) 100k is not reasonable, but either way this happens now, whether that person is covered or not. And again, how awful of me to expect that people will take care of themselves and be responsible for their own actions. I have to point out, again, that this is a pretty odd view of why people frequently need health care. It's not irresponsibility or moral failures that make you predisposed to getting cancer or catching the flu or just needing routine health care.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:07 AM) You keep calling it affordable and for most people, it's not affordable. Because AGAIN, they did nothing to control the cost sourcing. Doctors/Hospitals/Clinics can STILL charge whatever they want, whenever they want, because there is no ability to shop around or refuse an in-hospital 20 second doctor "visit" that tacks on another 200-400$ to your bill. Prices will rise at the same rate they were rising BEFORE the law went into effect because nothing was done to control costs at the source. Well, I believe that healthcare is probably the worst possible place to rely on a pure consumer market precisely because it's a vital good (in the literal sense!) that often can't be delayed at all to shop around. The ACA did contain some cost-control provisions, and they appear to be having at least somewhat of an effect already. Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices could help, but short of strict price controls, I'm not sure what you'd like to see in order to reduce costs from doctors/hospitals/clinics. Part of the cost built-in is the ridiculous cost for medical school. One of my friends it finishing up his dentistry program and then wants to go into oral surgery. By the time he's done, he'll have over half a million in debt, and he's going to public schools.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) To most of lower rungs? Nothing. They weren't "paying" in the first place. They are the loss leaders you just referred to. You yourself said this is going to transfer money from the healthy to the hospitals and insurance companies. That's not what a "loss leader" is, but many still paid substantial percentages of their income out-of-pocket, even if they couldn't pay the whole bill, or they simply went without, meaning they were less healthy and less productive. Plus you have some people who already had health insurance, but it was ridiculously expensive and they are seeing their premiums drop and may even be partially subsidized. Or they'll be covered by the Medicaid expansion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) I'm sure the people seeing their health plans cancelled agree. I thought you were asking about a net effect, not whether any one particular individual will be adversely affected?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:00 AM) Here's what I am interested in... I wonder what the drag on the economy is going to be when all of these millions of people get hit with all of these new costs? What will the boost to the economy be when millions of people have access to affordable health care services?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:54 AM) BUT AGAIN IT COULD NOT DO SO. Why? Were they not tracking expenditures by the two groups? edit: from the summary: So what's the bottom-line difference between the increase cost of preventive services and the decreased cost of catastrophic services? I already said "statistically significant or not," so sample sizes don't really enter in here. Basically, what's the supporting data for the idea that we'll see substantial decreases in long-term health care expenditures for people who previously lacked access?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:55 AM) Why the f*** are you wasting time and money conducting the study if you aren't going to use a sample size large enough that the results can be statistically significant???? The opportunity to do a study like that comes around approximately never. They had 90000 people who wanted to sign up for the Oregon Medicaid expansion, but only 10,000 spots. It gave them a randomized control and experimental group. You can't test this stuff in a laboratory, you can only test it in the real world with the best scenarios that are available. And they had plenty of statistically significant results, it's just that some particular measures weren't.

Timelines may have been too short to show the long-term impacts of healthcare access, but as far as I've read, the study didn't find decreased overall expenditures for people on Medicaid, statistically significant or not.

I thought it showed that Medicaid did a great job of providing these people with health care access, that they used this access for preventative care and reduced catastrophic illness costs, but that there were no clear results (statistically significant, as you said) about it actually reducing overall health expenditures. Which, don't get me wrong, a program that would be a wash financially but gives millions of more people improved health care would be a fantastic program. I just don't know that we have the data to expect a fairly substantial drop in overall healthcare spending from those who currently (or previously) lacked access to routine health care. okay here's one review of the study I found, and I think this alone is an incredibly important factor: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/oregon...understood.html Couple that with some other recent studies that show the impact on cognitive ability of chronic stress and anxiety. When you're poor, you're always having to make important decisions on how to allocate your very limited funds to meet your basic needs. Guaranteed healthcare access in itself would lift a substantial burden, reducing stress, increasing financial flexibility and increasing mental wellness (the study did find a substantial drop in depression).

Didn't that Oregon Medicaid study show mixed results in that regard?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:33 AM) Well first of all, I think I meant pre-PPACA. Second, if what you are saying is true... then before PPACA, those costs were NOT going to the taxpayers. The hospitals had to take them as collection items like any other business does, try to recover as much as they can, and write off the rest. But now with PPACA, the hospital can pass that cost onto Medicaid, or just keep doing the same thing? So in other words, for states that TOOK the expansion, we are now charging the taxpayers, when we weren't before? And for the other states, we will continue to NOT pass it on to the taxpayers? But these losses (pre- or post-ACA) can and are estimated and included in the business and pricing models of the health care providers. It's like retail stores taking into account 5% shrinkage (theft & breakage) and having their overall pricing and cost structure reflecting that. So, the "taxpayers" were picking up part of the bill before through increased prices for Medicare/aid patients, and the rest was being picked up by people with private insurance. It's the same now.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) Your friend must not be easily impressed. I just gave it a listen. It's a wonderful combination of early Shady and modern Shady. First spin "love", will listen to it 8,000 more times before Monday. Not specific to this album, but I usually find that albums that I "love" on the first go-around will fade pretty quickly but ones that take a few listens for me to really get into can stick for years.

from bond billionaire Bill Gross:

The category would be "people with insurance," including a big chunk of government-funded health insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) who get stuck with higher costs from health care providers to cover that lost revenue.

Why Republicans wanted to gut the Voting Rights Act http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-...o-vote-20131030

ok well based on his years of posting history here I think he'd take being called a right-winger as a compliment

Now I'm more confused, are you saying cknolls actually does reject the idea of the "liberal media"?

What? Cknolls is a pretty conservative guy, he's not going to be defending the idea that the media isn't liberal

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:24 PM) I am funning you. yes, more importantly, I'm not sure why Y2HH took that comment from you literally.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:23 PM) Yea they are No, they aren't, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim. The claim that the media is, overall, biased one way or the other is separate from the claim that they are like Fox News. To whatever extent the rest of the mainstream media organizations skew liberal (they all pro-corporate, largely pro-status quo and pro-neoliberal economics, e.g. all the media debt/deficit/"entitlements just have to be cut" discussions for the last few years), they are not at all like Fox News. For what it's worth, the Sunday Morning political talkshows are pretty heavily skewed towards Republican guests, and most of the media loves to play the "both sides" lazy journalism game.

No, 'every other' American news organization is not a mirror image of Fox News.

nah

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 08:48 PM) Only NBA would try and speed up game by making players walk up court, stop, shoot, walk back, and start play. ha