Health Care Thread

Araysar_sl said:

So here you nod your head sagely as CBO seems to confirm your preconceptions and agree with it



But once I tell you what the report really says, you do 180 and now its Obama and the feds providing phony numbers before the upcoming election and the report is garbage


hahaha

Click to expand...

And so it starts:

Correction: A previous version said the CBO expected the government would collect about $104 billion less than previously projected from health-law provisions over the next decade. It's actually $61 billion.

Click to expand...

Merlin_sl said:

And so it starts:

Click to expand...

You do realize that's talking about them stating that it was going to provide less revenue, right? And that now it's going to be providing slightly closer to the original estimate...

Thus the word "collecting" - that correction is actually $43b more towards the "costing less" side because it's generating $43b more revenue...

Vaclav_sl said:

You do realize that's talking about them stating that it was going to provide less revenue, right? And that now it's going to be providing slightly closer to the original estimate...

Thus the word "collecting" - that correction is actually $43b more towards the "costing less" side because it's generating $43b more revenue...

Click to expand...

Its in negatives. Of course he fucked it up.

The revenue comes from some horse shit grade school equivocation ending squarely on proud middle class Americans

fanaskin_sl said:

where does the revenue come from?

Click to expand...

Comes from the makers and goes to the takers

fanaskin_sl said:

where does the revenue come from?

Click to expand...

Probably from the taxes on the insurance companies would be my guess, but they don't have it elaborated in the report that I see.

Still never got an answer to this. Merlin, why do you expect us to foot the bill to feed your kids (and provide medical care I'm sure), but we can't expect you to foot the bill to provide health insurance for us? Please explain to me what Conservative logic makes sense of this.

General Antony_sl said:

Comes from the makers and goes to the takers

Click to expand...

^

OneofOne_sl said:

Please explain to me what Conservative logic makes sense of this.

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple: They areforgovernment for them, against government foryou. My conservative father has the same mindset. He rails against the "goddamn illegals don't pay taxes, they took 'er jerbs!!". Meanwhile, he collected unemployment checks for nearly 2 years, all while getting payed cash and misreporting his income.

I believe we're talking about who pays for ACA subsidies, right?

How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR

MIT , who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies.

"The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans," he says. "Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."

Click to expand...

I couldn't find info (in 2min searching google) on the source of federal funds for Medicaid expansion. It is safe to assume the 10% state portion after 2020 will come from state income tax? (increase)

Medicaid is by law Federally funded, so it would all be coming from the top for anything when it comes to government funding - and additionally by the ACA it's required for each state that participates in the Medicaid Expansion to allow a variant of Medicaid where people can opt to BUY INTO MEDICAID (at a likely much reduced rate versus standard insurance that would be equivalently costed but with the downsides of Medicaid...).

So more than likely the projected "savings" are actually the premiums they expect from people subscribing to the "Buy into Medicaid" people. Which while overall it might sound unappealing - Medicaid as a secondary with Medicare is literally the best insurance you can have in the US for the dollar because it offers so much assistance with copays [especially on pharmacy stuff that Medicare is weak on] for what is going to be a trivial cost. Wife and I carry GEHA as our secondary for nearly $150/mo each which rarely saves us money especially with the $20 [$50 non-generic] pharmacy copay, Medicaid is projected to cost us $45/mo each as a "buy-in" with $2-3 [$10 non-generic] pharmacy copays.

From how good the combination is, assuming the word gets out, I expect the Medicaid "Buy in" numbers to eclipse the standard users to be honest. It's THAT good as a secondary with Medicare.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Poor people getting taxed too with that medical device tax.

Click to expand...

Technically somewhat true - it's a tax on any medical devices that are SHIPPED to or from the US. So for imported and exported units the taxes are only going to be indirectly represented here. It's not just a tax on US held companies or US purchased devices when it comes to those we ship out. In a large amount it's actually getting extra tax dollars for things from companies that have a minimal tax burden here already.

Yea, being a secondary user in most of the UHC nations (except for Singapore and Sweden I think?) sounds really wonky. Don't they have the big military hospital in Germany though? Would think that would've been the more efficient route being a military person - or do they not do those types of procedures there?