I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange
Comments
-
A lot like having a black man in power. "They" hate it.
Not much on conspiracy theories, but did watch the ACA hearings today (software issues). Hmmm, SERCO was involved? If there is a large government service contract company that has political involvements, a la Carlyle Group, Tony Blair and Dick Cheney, that is the company. If they want to ride on their reputation as a good contractor - forget about it. Underperforms while expecting renumeration for their non-service. Don't know why they are still in business. I hope someone is looking at the angle I am implying. If nothing else, why they are even awarded government contracts. -
I haven't been watching the hearings, but I've been suspicious about what's gone down with this ACA website fiasco. Clearly Obama should have had a tech point person checking everything twice over, BUT, in the absence of that kind of oversight, it would be easy for "mistakes" to happen. Just saying. -
-
suzie,
Don't you know? All important stuff happens in the US so we don't need to know basic geography. All civilization happened in the West, so the US doesn't need to know anything about the rest of the world. If it ain't the USA or Northern Europe, it doesn't really matter. This is just how it is.
Sad, isn't it?
-
Ezra Klein in his WaPo Wonkblog column lays out EXACTLY who is responsible for the healthcare.gov screwups and the rocky rollout:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/24/wonkbook-the-gops-obamacare-chutzpah/Wonkbook: The GOP’s Obamacare chutzpah
By Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas, Published: October 24 at 8:40 am
The classic definition of chutzpah is the child who kills his parents and then asks for leniency because he's an orphan. But in recent weeks, we've begun to see the Washington definition: A party that does everything possible to sabotage a law and then professes fury when the law's launch is rocky.
On Tuesday, Rep. Paul Ryan became the latest Republicans to call for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to step down because of the Affordable Care Act's troubled launch. "I do believe people should be held accountable," he said.
Okay then.
How about House Republicans who refused to appropriate the money the Department of Health and Human Services said it needed to properly implement Obamacare?
How about Senate Republicans who tried to intimidate Sebelius out of using existing HHS funds to implement Obamacare? "Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers?" Sen. Orrin Hatch demanded at one hearing. It's difficult to imagine the size of the disaster if Sebelius hadn't moved those funds.
How about congressional Republicans who refuse to permit the packages of technical fixes and tweaks that laws of this size routinely require?
How about Republican governors who told the Obama administration they absolutely had to be left to build their own health-care exchanges -- you'll remember that the House Democrats' health-care plan included a single, national exchange -- and then refused to build, leaving the construction of 34 insurance marketplaces up to HHS?
How about the coordinated Republican effort to get the law declared unconstitutional -- an effort that ultimately failed, but that stalled implementation as government and industry waited for the uncertainty to resolve?
How about the dozens of Republican governors who refused to take federal dollars to expand Medicaid, leaving about 5.5 million low-income people who'd be eligible for free, federally-funded government insurance to slip through the cracks?
The GOP's strategy hasn't just tried to win elections and repeal Obamacare. They've actively sought to sabotage the implementation of the law. They intimidated the people who were implementing the law. They made clear that problems would be exploited rather than fixed. A few weeks ago, they literally shut down the government because they refused to pass a funding bill that contiained money for Obamacare.
The Obama administration deserves all the criticism it's getting for the poor start of health law and more. Their job was to implement the law effectively -- even if Republicans were standing in their way. So far, it's clear that they weren't able to smoothly surmount both the complexities of the law and the political roadblocks thrown in their path. Who President Obama will ultimately hold accountable -- if anyone -- for the failed launch is an interesting question.
But the GOP's complaints that their plan to undermine the law worked too well and someone has to pay border on the comic. If Republicans believe Sebelius is truly to blame for the law's poor launch, they should be pinning a medal on her.
---------------------(continued online)
Oh, the irony. They are screaming about the rocky implementation of a law that they have tried everything to derail except sacrificing goats and dancing naked under the full moon (and I wouldn't be surprised to hear they did that, too). Breathless howls of outrage because their obstructionism screwed up the rollout of the law. Amazing they can sit in front of the cameras and beller about the ACA without bursting into flames.
-
-
-
-
RL, great piece. Ezra Klein is pretty knowledgeable and tells it like it is. What clowns now yelling about the ACA. Hard to understand why someone would pick this way to try and save face and perhaps restore what dignity they could to themselves and their party.
The morals and ethics ( heavy on the ethics ) is sorely lacking with this group and there are not very many ways to get it back. Certainly not that quickly by grandstanding on ACA. I think they are going to have to tuck their tails behind their legs and take it on the chin. Spineless, gutless wonders that are going to lose a lot in the next two years in my opinion.
If they are serious, they will dismiss the faction that put them ( although so many, many went willingly ) where they are right now and not give them one inch. It took some while for all this to happen and one rousing 'how could you' over the ACA is not going to do anything but make them continue to look as bad as they do.
Jackie -
Kam forgot to say how much I like the new Avatar and Blue, oh those pictures lady. Sunny will love them too.
Jackie -
Hi Friends,
Just wanted to complain about the weather. It's 46 degrees out with a wind chill of 40. This totally sucks. The Farmer's Almanac said my area would have a very cold and snowy winter.
Blue .. Love the floral arrangement on the chair. That is just the type of thing I used to sell in San Diego. No market for Shabby Chic where I live. How are you doing since the botox injection?
Chickadee .. How many more WBR treatments do you have?
Hope everyone has a good Friday. Time to dig out the winter coats and boots and walk the dogs.
hugs,
Bren -
notself didn't you know you need a passport and shots to visit New Mexico? Heehee.
I've lost count. Next week and a couple additional at least. I'll know when I get my Mohawk. -
-
Blue, that is am amazing picture! WOW! -
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp13127
The New England Journal of MedicineDead Man Walking
Michael Stillman, M.D., and Monalisa Tailor, M.D.
October 23, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1312793
“Shocked” wouldn't be accurate, since we were accustomed to our uninsured patients' receiving inadequate medical care. “Saddened” wasn't right, either, only pecking at the edge of our response. And “disheartened” just smacked of victimhood. After hearing this story, we were neither shocked nor saddened nor disheartened. We were simply appalled.
We met Tommy Davis in our hospital's clinic for indigent persons in March 2013 (the name and date have been changed to protect the patient's privacy). He and his wife had been chronically uninsured despite working full-time jobs and were now facing disastrous consequences.
The week before this appointment, Mr. Davis had come to our emergency department with abdominal pain and obstipation. His examination, laboratory tests, and CT scan had cost him $10,000 (his entire life savings), and at evening's end he'd been sent home with a diagnosis of metastatic colon cancer.
The year before, he'd had similar symptoms and visited a primary care physician, who had taken a cursory history, told Mr. Davis he'd need insurance to be adequately evaluated, and billed him $200 for the appointment. Since Mr. Davis was poor and ineligible for Kentucky Medicaid, however, he'd simply used enemas until he was unable to defecate. By the time of his emergency department evaluation, he had a fully obstructed colon and widespread disease and chose to forgo treatment.
Mr. Davis had had an inkling that something was awry, but he'd been unable to pay for an evaluation. As his wife sobbed next to him in our examination room, he recounted his months of weight loss, the unbearable pain of his bowel movements, and his gnawing suspicion that he had cancer. “If we'd found it sooner,” he contended, “it would have made a difference. But now I'm just a dead man walking.”
For many of our patients, poverty alone limits access to care. We recently saw a man with AIDS and a full-body rash who couldn't afford bus fare to a dermatology appointment. We sometimes pay for our patients' medications because they are unable to cover even a $4 copayment. But a fair number of our patients — the medical “have-nots” — are denied basic services simply because they lack insurance, and our country's response to this problem has, at times, seemed toothless.
In our clinic, uninsured patients frequently find necessary care unobtainable. An obese 60-year-old woman with symptoms and signs of congestive heart failure was recently evaluated in the clinic. She couldn't afford the echocardiogram and evaluation for ischemic heart disease that most internists would have ordered, so furosemide treatment was initiated and adjusted to relieve her symptoms. This past spring, our colleagues saw a woman with a newly discovered lung nodule that was highly suspicious for cancer. She was referred to a thoracic surgeon, but he insisted that she first have a PET scan — a test for which she couldn't possibly pay.
However unconscionable we may find the story of Mr. Davis, a U.S. citizen who will die because he was uninsured, the literature suggests that it's a common tale. A 2009 study revealed a direct correlation between lack of insurance and increased mortality and suggested that nearly 45,000 American adults die each year because they have no medical coverage.1 And although we can't confidently argue that Mr. Davis would have survived had he been insured, research suggests that possibility; formerly uninsured adults given access to Oregon Medicaid were more likely than those who remained uninsured to have a usual place of care and a personal physician, to attend outpatient medical visits, and to receive recommended preventive care.2 Had Mr. Davis been insured, he might well have been offered timely and appropriate screening for colorectal cancer, and his abdominal pain and obstipation would surely have been urgently evaluated.
Elected officials bear a great deal of blame for the appalling vulnerability of the 22% of American adults who currently lack insurance. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) — the only legitimate legislative attempt to provide near-universal health coverage — remains under attack from some members of Congress, and our own two senators argue that enhancing marketplace competition and enacting tort reform will provide security enough for our nation's poor.
In discussing (and grieving over) what has happened to Mr. Davis and our many clinic patients whose health suffers for lack of insurance, we have considered our own obligations. As some congresspeople attempt to defund Obamacare, and as some states' governors and attorneys general deliberate over whether to implement health insurance exchanges and expand Medicaid eligibility, how can we as physicians ensure that the needs of patients like Mr. Davis are met?
First, we can honor our fundamental professional duty to help. Some have argued that the onus for providing access to health care rests on society at large rather than on individual physicians,3 yet the Hippocratic Oath compels us to treat the sick according to our ability and judgment and to keep them from harm and injustice. Even as we continue to hope for and work toward a future in which all Americans have health insurance, we believe it's our individual professional responsibility to treat people in need.
Second, we can familiarize ourselves with legislative details and educate our patients about proposed health care reforms. During our appointment with Mr. Davis, he worried aloud that under the ACA, “the government would tax him for not having insurance.” He was unaware (as many of our poor and uninsured patients may be) that under that law's final rule, he and his family would meet the eligibility criteria for Medicaid and hence have access to comprehensive and affordable care.
Finally, we can pressure our professional organizations to demand health care for all. The American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, and the Society of General Internal Medicine have endorsed the principle of universal health care coverage yet have generally remained silent during years of political debate. Lack of insurance can be lethal, and we believe our professional community should treat inaccessible coverage as a public health catastrophe and stand behind people who are at risk.
Seventy percent of our clinic patients have no health insurance, and they are all frighteningly vulnerable; their care is erratic, they are disqualified from receiving certain preventive and screening measures, and their lack of resources prevents them from participating in the medical system. And this is not a community- or state-specific problem. A recent study showed that underinsured patients have higher mortality rates after myocardial infarction,4 and it is well documented that our country's uninsured present with later-stage cancers and more poorly controlled chronic diseases than do patients with insurance.5 We find it terribly and tragically inhumane that Mr. Davis and tens of thousands of other citizens of this wealthy country will die this year for lack of insurance.
-----------------------end.
And if you think this is OK, you are a terrible person. If you say, "Well, he should just have gotten a better job." you are a terrible person. If you say, "Oh, he could have been treated at any ER." you are a wilfully stupid and terrible person.
That this should happen in any First World country is shameful. That it should happen in the United States - over and over again, every day - is unconscionable. This is what the regressives are advocating - let 'em die. Ugh.
-
Might be some good news in the difficulty of ACA roll out: A change to the US Gov purchasing process. By the time a company has made it through the current process, it's cheaper/easier to keep hiring the SAME CONSULTANTS then letting some one new into the process. Remember the "old" stories of the hundreds military procurements wasted on toilets, etc. Same process in ALL Departments - that's the SCANDAL of this , not the problems with ACA, but the problems with the government process of purchasing anything! -
RL, wasn't that the whole idea all along. Only allow the strongest to survive. Only thing is, the strongest are likely almost always to be the ones who can get great Ins. and have no worry. They have plenty of money and always will. Cruel and heartless and totally cold are not words in their language.
Jackie -
-
Libby - we have free public hospitals here, so no one should go untreated no matter what their circumstances. There are waiting lists for elective surgery, but urgent cases are treated promptly. Makes the US look like a 3rd world country doesn't it? -
Yes it does, Suzie. It is utterly shameful. *Some* people will tell you that the indigent can go to hospital emergency rooms and get treated for free, but that is a lie. People can go to emergency rooms for emergencies and be treated and stabilized for emergency medical conditions, but there is no provision for going to an ER to be evaluated for something like this man's colon cancer. Not only that, but once an emergency patient has been stabilized, they are discharged. And if they have no insurance or Medicaid, they are relentlessly hounded by bill collectors and credit agencies. "Free" clinics are overwhelmed and most cannot provide screening like CT or PET scans. The U.S. is the only First World country that allows this to happen, and the only developed country in which people go bankrupt from medical bills. Shameful. -
-
-
RL - it is shameful. I wish the ACA had gone further and created a single payer system, because I am concerned that people will still be left without insurance, even if the exchanges work. There are the states that refuse Medicaid. There are the idiots who think it's better financially to have no insurance and pay the penalty - I even worry about them - and their families. -
RL
all we have to do to understand what it means to be without insurance, is to look at what our hospitals, doctors CHARGE, and what insurance reimburses them - and that's an agreed upon number, better for some docs, hospitals, than others. Basically, an uninsured person does not have a health insurance industry lobbying for them to get a reduced rate.
BTW- interesting, all my MA BCBS premiums have been lowered for 2014. Co-pays lower, deductible lower - think the insurance companies must've gotten hammered about their charges. Don't know if this is only MA. We can thank Martha Coakley, AG, and hopefully Govenor if it is MA.
Also notice and incredible increase in competition for Medicare Medi-Gap, and Medicare Part D plans during Open Enrollment - wonder why they want all us old folk? -
Hope this goes in ok.....I couldn't get a link to show up:
The Affordable Care Act is already working: Intense price competition among by safesaver" id="_GPLITA_0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/10/23/77537/the-affordable-care-acts-lower-than-projected-premiums-will-save-190-billion/#" in_hdr="" in_rurl="http://i.txtsrving.info/click?v=VVM6NTI3MTU6MTUyODpoZWFsdGggcGxhbnM6ODJmYmYzODNiOGNlYTEzNjMxNDNlZWU4YzQ5MjUxN2M6ei0xNDk5LTMzOTQ1Njp3d3cuYW1lcmljYW5wcm9ncmVzcy5vcmc6MTAzNTE3OjU1ZTg3ZDJmNWIyMTgwYjI1MzdjY2Y3NDU0MWZlYTRhOjdjMWMzNzhjZDVjNzRlYTU4MjZlZTUwZjQ1YTNkODAw">health plans
in the marketplaces for individuals has lowered premiums below projected levels. As a result of these lower premiums, the federal government will save about $190 billion over the next 10 years, according to our estimates. These savings will boost the health law’s amount of deficit reduction by 174 percent and represent about 40 percent of the health care savings proposed by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—commonly known as the Simpson-Bowles commission—in 2010.
Moreover, we estimate that lower premiums will lower the number of uninsured even further, by an additional 700,000 people, even as the number of individuals who receive tax credits will decline because by safesaver" id="_GPLITA_3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/10/23/77537/the-affordable-care-acts-lower-than-projected-premiums-will-save-190-billion/#" in_rurl="http://i.txtsrving.info/click?v=VVM6Mjc2MzU6MTUxNzppbnN1cmFuY2U6OTFlODNiZTExZTM2ZmE1MmNkYWYyMmRlYWFlNGIyNzI6ei0xNDk5LTMzOTQ1Njp3d3cuYW1lcmljYW5wcm9ncmVzcy5vcmc6MTAwNTIyOjBlZGRkNWQ4ZTRmNTZiYWI0N2Y4MzZhMjJmY2MyNzI4OmE4YzU0OTYwYTg5NzRiN2M4YjE1ZjEwOTA3MzU5NDAy">insurance is more affordable.
In short, the Affordable Care Act is working even better than expected, producing more coverage for much less money.Marketplace plans and tax credits
Under the Affordable Care Act, marketplaces that offer by safesaver" id="_GPLITA_1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/10/23/77537/the-affordable-care-acts-lower-than-projected-premiums-will-save-190-billion/#" in_rurl="http://i.txtsrving.info/click?v=VVM6NTI3MTU6MTUyODpoZWFsdGggcGxhbnM6ZDRhNDZmNDI4YmQyMWRkYjI1NzQ3OTk4ODFiNDQ5YTA6ei0xNDk5LTMzOTQ1Njp3d3cuYW1lcmljYW5wcm9ncmVzcy5vcmc6MTAzNTE1OjM0Njg1NDRhMzFmYzljNzEwYzQ0NTM0ZDMxNWI0OTczOmE0MDE5ZDQ5YTk5NzRmZTE5MGE1MmRmYjE3M2Q1NzFh">health plans to individuals are now open in every state. The federal government is operating marketplaces in 36 states, and 14 states and the District of Columbia are operating their own marketplaces. Marketplace plans offer five levels of coverage—catastrophic, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum—ranging from less generous to more generous.
Individuals with family income from one to four times the federal poverty level (about $26,000 to $94,000 for a family of four)—and who are not eligible for other qualified coverage—are eligible for tax credits to help cover the cost of a plan. The by safesaver" id="_GPLITA_5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/10/23/77537/the-affordable-care-acts-lower-than-projected-premiums-will-save-190-billion/#" in_rurl="http://i.txtsrving.info/click?v=VVM6MjcyMTQ6MTg6dGF4IGNyZWRpdDpmZWFlZmQzYzYyZDRjNTI1ZDAyOGM3ZTI2YmMxNmRhODp6LTE0OTktMzM5NDU2Ond3dy5hbWVyaWNhbnByb2dyZXNzLm9yZzoxOTA1NTo4YTJmNjlmM2VlNGFkYjNhNTQxOWJiMWZkZmI0MjdjNzo5YThiNGQ1MGFlMzQ0MGY3OWRhODRhOWQ1OTFhYzUwOA">tax credit caps the amount an individual must pay for the second-lowest-cost silver plan at a certain percentage of family income, ranging from 2 percent of income at the poverty level to 9.5 percent of income at four times the poverty level.Price competition in the marketplaces
When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, projected premiums under the Affordable Care Act before its enactment, it theorized that increased competition would lower premiums in the individual market—but only slightly. In CBO’s view, marketplaces that organize the market—making it easier for consumers to compare choices—would encourage plans to keep premiums low to attract consumers.
CBO’s theory has turned out to be right in reality—only more so.
CBO’s projected premium levels
In March 2012, CBO projected an average family premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan of $15,400 in 2016. This family premium is equivalent to an individual premium of $5,700 in 2016. CBO projected that private by safesaver" id="_GPLITA_4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/10/23/77537/the-affordable-care-acts-lower-than-projected-premiums-will-save-190-billion/#" in_rurl="http://i.txtsrving.info/click?v=VVM6Mjc2MzU6MTUxNzppbnN1cmFuY2U6ZWU0MWFhZjdjZmM5YTllYjgzNDY1NzQ0NmU3YTI3Njg6ei0xNDk5LTMzOTQ1Njp3d3cuYW1lcmljYW5wcm9ncmVzcy5vcmc6MTAwNTIyOjBlZGRkNWQ4ZTRmNTZiYWI0N2Y4MzZhMjJmY2MyNzI4OmQ2ZTk5ZDEzOWQyODQ5MmJhOTZlZmY4MzA2ZDRiOGIy">insurance premiums would increase by 5.5 percent per year from 2014 to 2016, so its estimate for 2014 would be lower by that amount. In addition, the Affordable Care Act covers the cost of high-risk enrollees through 2016, but it provides greater relief in 2014 than in 2016. This reinsurance will lower premiums by more in 2014 than in 2016. Taking the estimate of $5,700 in 2016, trending it backward by 5.5 percent per year, and accounting for greater reinsurance in 2014 yields an estimate of $4,700 in 2014.
In an analysis of plans offered in the marketplaces, the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform found that new entrants into the market make up 26 percent of all insurers. These new entrants are introducing competitive pressures into the individual market. The McKinsey analysis found that new entrants tend to price their plans lower than the median premiums in their market.
Moreover, in a preliminary analysis of plans offered in 18 areas, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that premiums are lower than CBO’s projected premiums in 15 of those areas.
In March 2012, CBO projected an average family premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2016. This projection is equivalent to an average individual premium in 2014 of $4,700 (see sidebar). The actual average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2014 turned out to be $3,936—16 percent lower than projected.Impact on costs and coverage
Premiums for the second-lowest-cost silver plan are important because tax credits for individuals are based on the cost of that plan. If premiums for that plan are lower, then the cost of tax credits will also be lower.
Consider a typical individual making $30,000 a year. That individual’s premium contribution would be capped at 8.37 percent of income, or $2,512. If the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan is $4,700, then the tax credit would be the difference between this premium and the individual’s contribution, or $2,188. But if the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan turns out to be only $3,936, then the tax credit would be $1,424.
We estimate that a 16 percent reduction in premiums will lower the total cost of tax credits by about 21 percent. As the example above illustrates, the percentage reduction in the tax credit will often be much greater than the percentage reduction in the premium. Because the amount that individuals pay is fixed at a percentage of income, a reduction in premiums will result in a proportionally larger reduction in government spending.
In its May 2013 baseline, CBO projected that the tax credits would cost $920 billion through 2023. But CBO made this projection before data on actual premium rates became available. A 16 percent reduction in premiums will lower this cost by about 21 percent, or about $190 billion.
Another result of the reduction in premiums is that more individuals will take up coverage because it is even more affordable. We estimate that a 16 percent reduction in premiums will lower the number of uninsured by an additional 2.8 percent. Because CBO had projected a decline in the number of uninsured of 25 million by 2023, this means that an additional 700,000 people will gain coverage. (See Methodology for more information on our estimates.)$190 billion in context
When it was enacted, the Affordable Care Act was already fully paid for and projected to lower the federal budget deficit. In its most recent estimate, CBO projected that the law would lower the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. Our estimated $190 billion in savings will increase that deficit reduction by 174 percent to almost $300 billion.
Recent long-term debt-reduction plans have proposed substantial health care savings in combination with additional tax revenue. The Simpson-Bowles commission, for example, proposed $487 billion in health care savings. And in the last “grand bargain” offer that President Barack Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in December 2012, he proposed about $400 billion in health care savings.
Our estimated $190 billion in savings represents a sizable share of these proposals’ health care savings—about 40 percent of the Simpson-Bowles plan’s savings and almost half of the president’s proposed savings.Conclusion
In the spring, CBO will update its baseline projection of the Affordable Care Act. When it does, the agency will take into account the actual experience of premium rates for plans offered in the marketplaces in 2014—which are significantly lower than projected. We estimate that the savings to the federal government will be about $190 billion over the next 10 years. This is an important early indication that the Affordable Care Act is working even better than expected to lower health care spending and federal deficits.
Topher Spiro is the Vice President for Health Policy at the Center for American Progress. Jonathan Gruber is professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Methodology
We used the Gruber Microsimulation Model, or GMSIM, to model the impact of a 16 percent reduction in premiums for plans in the individual market. Microsimulation modeling uses evidence from health economics studies to model how individuals and employers respond to changes in policy or the environment. The Congressional Budget Office uses the same type of modeling.
The GMSIM is designed to closely match CBO estimates that have been released to date. While our estimates are not guaranteed to exactly mimic what CBO would find for a comparable reduction in premiums, our findings should provide a reasonable approximation of CBO’s findings. -
The above was just some news I was just reading before I came over here. It was put out by the Center for American Progress. I got a notice from the V.A. not to sign up for anything since between them and my Medicare I am covered.
The above information certainly holds much hope that things will be substantially better than previously thought. I think with getting a lot more people back to work and some progress starting in other areas very un-ceremoniously shoved to the back of the closet while the Regressive and others picked on the President, we could see some order out of chaos.
Jackie -
-
-
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team