Projections of ACA impact on 2014 elections

see4 said:

It would account for roughly 3% increase year over year. But now that I have you in this corner, let's stay here for a moment.

Click to expand...

If the inflation rate had been 3%. It's been around half that for most of Obama's presidency.

Healthcare costs are rising, for arguments sake, "tremendously". If doctor's salaries have declined by an average of 10% over the past decade, and medical assisting positions have also ran stagnant, where is the money going? Remember, this is not insurance, this is healthcare costs. Where is the money going? My bet is on hospitals, because they are being treated as free market enterprises. Would you care to share your opinion on this?

Click to expand...

First, doctor salaries haven't declined by an average of 10% over the past decade, they went up. Unless you have some 2003 versus 2013 number that I couldn't locate...

The money's going to everyone. Doctors, nurses, medical device companies, prescription drug companies, hospitals--everyone. Why would you suggest that someone eat a strict diet to resolve some of their heart problems when you can perform a $5,000 surgery instead?

tokeprep said:

First, doctor salaries haven't declined by an average of 10% over the past decade, they went up. Unless you have some 2003 versus 2013 number that I couldn't locate...

The money's going to everyone. Doctors, nurses, medical device companies, prescription drug companies, hospitals--everyone. Why would you suggest that someone eat a strict diet to resolve some of their heart problems when you can perform a $5,000 surgery instead?

Click to expand...

Radiologists and orthopedic surgeons saw their annual compensation fall by 10%. General surgeons experienced the largest drop in pay, by 12% since 2010, while ophthalmologists saw a 9% boost and pediatricians’ income rose 5%.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/27/doctors-salaries-who-earns-the-most-and-the-least/#ixzz2iy5Scq2B

Anywho...

Ok, so what is your problem with rising healthcare costs? When they were steadily rising during the Bush administration you weren't crying then, why all of a sudden you crying about it now? Oh because you think what we had in place before was working just fine? You think steadily rising healthcare costs are fine?

Radiology: $315,000
Orthopedics: $315,000
Cardiology: $314,000
Plastic surgery: $270,000
General surgery: $265,000
Obstetrics/Gynecology: $220,000
Psychiatry: $170,000
Pediatrics: $156,000

see4 said:

Radiologists and orthopedic surgeons saw their annual compensation fall by 10%. General surgeons experienced the largest drop in pay, by 12% since 2010, while ophthalmologists saw a 9% boost and pediatricians’ income rose 5%.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/27/doctors-salaries-who-earns-the-most-and-the-least/#ixzz2iy5Scq2B

Click to expand...

Your article notes that its results are inconsistent with those of other surveys of medical salaries. And it's a comparison to the previous year, not salaries 10 years ago.

Anywho...

Ok, so what is your problem with rising healthcare costs? When they were steadily rising during the Bush administration you weren't crying then, why all of a sudden you crying about it now? Oh because you think what we had in place before was working just fine? You think steadily rising healthcare costs are fine?

Click to expand...

How would you know what I was complaining about and when? If you'd read anything I've written here about healthcare costs, you would know that I'm a fierce critic of the status quo. Obamacare is just an ill-fated extension of the status quo: spending a lot more money without doing anything to contain costs. Insurance is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

GOD HERE said:

I think the linear model should be used especially with "laymen", considering that third party attributes can be attached (and often are, especially in European politics) when needed. Ideally, it would be a three dimensional political web, but you'd lose 99% of your audience.

Click to expand...

I've seen a couple 3D models... they are difficult to navigate. That 3rd axis is not a simple matter to agree on.
But a 2D model is not that difficult to comprehend even for laymen. Which is why I try to encourage its use more. If people such as ourselves (i.e. everybody in here) don't try to raise the perspective, then how can there be any greater evolution in the aggregate?
Static brain is static...

see4 said:

Radiology: $315,000
Orthopedics: $315,000
Cardiology: $314,000
Plastic surgery: $270,000
General surgery: $265,000
Obstetrics/Gynecology: $220,000
Psychiatry: $170,000
Pediatrics: $156,000

Click to expand...

http://www.workingincanada.gc.ca/LMI_report_area.do?reportOption=wage&PROVINCE_ID=35&GEOAREA_CD=9219&selectLocation=Continue



I'd have to dig deeper (there is a compendium of incomes for individual medical professionals in Canada), but there is a rough comparison of the range of incomes for Canadian medicine.
Note: the tables have columns as Low - Median - High incomes

lifegoesonbrah said:

Where do the Chomskers stand on ACA and healthcare in general? What is the Chomsky solution to our healthcare problems?

Click to expand...

I heard the Chomsker himself put out a hit on you, better desert ditch real quick bro.

since desert dipshit is off in la la land citing the goddamn heritage foundation (and most likely laughing to himself, hoping no one notices), i'll go ahead and cite something a little more credible.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/08/health-care-costs-are-holding-relatively-steady-for-now/

Americans kept health care spending in check for three years in a row, the government reported Monday, an unusual respite that could linger if the economy stays soft or fade like a mirage if job growth comes roaring back.

so despite the right wing, heritage foundation nonsense that desert dipshit is flinging wildly, the fact is that for three years health care costs have remained steady. so everyone blaming their premium increases on 'obamacare' is only illustrating what an easily duped buffoon they truly are.

tokeprep said:

How would you know what I was complaining about and when?

Click to expand...

he wouldn't, unless he was also your third grade teacher.

see4 said:

Charts brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. The single most conservative far right leaning organization in the country, besides the Republican party itself. Care to share with us something other than biased bullshit? I can tell you for one, that insurance premiums are far less in a dozen states that I know of so far. MA, AZ, CT, CA, VT, ME, NH, NJ, FL and I will need to look up the others I forget off the top of my head. Personally, my insurance premiums are slightly less now than they were 6 years ago when I was working for IBM, who has the single largest insurance pool in the country. My premiums and benefits were amazing.

Click to expand...

So your counter argument is "your source is biased" while showing absolutely no evidence demonstrating this?????? Your insurance premium, not including the employer paid portion, is slightly less for an inferior policy? And this supports your argument how????

tokeprep said:

...you would know that I'm a fierce critic of the status quo. Obamacare is just an ill-fated extension of the status quo: spending a lot more money without doing anything to contain costs. Insurance is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Click to expand...

I want to focus on this for a moment. How do you know that Obamacare is an ill-fated program? It has barely been implemented in its entirety. Are you an economist? A sociologist? Both? I'm betting neither.

I have to disagree completely that insurance is part of the problem of healthcare costs, as they are two completely separate things. That is like saying your car insurance is the same as your car payment. It's not. They are part-in-parcel, but certainly not congruent.

Which leaves us only with the beginning part of this argument; and your baseless assumption that Obamacare, though not fully enacted, is somehow already failing completely.

Ok, then let's say for arguments sake that Obamacare is a total failure and in 2014 it is completely repealed. What do you offer as suggestion to control healthcare costs and provide coverage for those with preexisting conditions and others who might not otherwise be able to afford coverage? The country is listening.

Red1966 said:

So your counter argument is "your source is biased" while showing absolutely no evidence demonstrating this?????? Your insurance premium, not including the employer paid portion, is slightly less for an inferior policy? And this supports your argument how????

Click to expand...

I am a partner in a company. I am Schedule K1, I pay my insurance out of my own pocket. I pay less for my insurance now than I did 6 years ago when I was an employee and my premiums were prorated by corporate participation. You can either take my word for it, or you don't. I know the truth, and that's what it is. But unless I show you the past 6 years of my financial records, it will be hard to provide complete evidence to the fact. So you take it for what it's worth. You obviously have made up your mind before entering the argument. Closed mindedness gets you nowhere my friend.

see4 said:

I am a partner in a company. I am Schedule K1, I pay my insurance out of my own pocket. I pay less for my insurance now than I did 6 years ago when I was an employee and my premiums were prorated by corporate participation. You can either take my word for it, or you don't. I know the truth, and that's what it is. But unless I show you the past 6 years of my financial records, it will be hard to provide complete evidence to the fact. So you take it for what it's worth. You obviously have made up your mind before entering the argument. Closed mindedness gets you nowhere my friend.

Click to expand...

"Your sources are biased" indicates that the one closed minded here is you. You described your benefits at IBM as "My premiums and benefits were amazing." You now pay less for "not so amazing". This doesn't support your argument, but you seem to think it does. Once again, deluding yourself into believing events somehow prove your ideology when they don't indicates a "closed mind".

So I only see that health care costs have went up when looking at healthcare statistics, can you show something different? You all keep saying that healthcare costs have remained the same, but premiums have increased. It is true that premiums have increased, but from what I am seeing the cots of healthcare have increased overall at a fast rate. Please show something to the contrary.







http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/

Red1966 said:

"Your sources are biased" indicates that the one closed minded here is you. You described your benefits at IBM as "My premiums and benefits were amazing." You now pay less for "not so amazing". This doesn't support your argument, but you seem to think it does. Once again, deluding yourself into believing events somehow prove your ideology when they don't indicates a "closed mind".

Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth and think you've made a valid argument. Try again.

I was trying to be polite and only provide you with the information I could. You clearly want to go down the douchebag rabbit-hole. So we can go that route.

re: deluding yourself into believing events -- Do you even have a full grasp of the English language? You dumb fuck.

I actually pay less for almost the exact same insurance. My deductible is $2000 a year now, and it was 6 years ago. My copay is $50 now, it was $25 then. All else is equal, except I pay less per month.

You slimy prick, you have nothing to argue so you attempt to put words in my mouth in the hopes that I won't notice. Piece of shit. You are as worthless as the glasses I put on your moms face right before I spackle her in the eye with my jizz.

Now, if you would like to return to a civil debate, we can. Totally up to you sport.

lifegoesonbrah said:

So I only see that health care costs have went up when looking at healthcare statistics, can you show something different? You all keep saying that healthcare costs have remained the same, but premiums have increased. It is true that premiums have increased, but from what I am seeing the cots of healthcare have increased overall at a fast rate. Please show something to the contrary.

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/

Click to expand...

Is it really this difficult for you to separate healthcare costs from insurance premiums? Why is it so easy for you to separate your car payments from your car insurance payments, but not for healthcare? Why?

see4 said:

Is it really this difficult for you to separate healthcare costs from insurance premiums? Why is it so easy for you to separate your car payments from your car insurance payments, but not for healthcare? Why?

Click to expand...

I'm just asking you to show some evidence of your claim that the costs of healthcare have not increased..... There is a difference between insuring a piece of machinery and a human being. A vehicle is valued at a set amount, the insurance costs take the value of the vehicle and the costs of repairs into consideration when determining costs to insure. If the costs of repairing vehicles increased, so would the cost of insurance. No? I am not understanding your point and am unconvinced that the rise in overall healthcare costs has not directly contributed to the rise in premiums. You have not proved this.

lifegoesonbrah said:

I'm just asking you to show some evidence of your claim that the costs of healthcare have not increased.....

Click to expand...

I am saying that HAVE increased. Please read over my comments. Thanks. In fact, I think you are missing the point entirely. And to the point of UB's assertion. Regardless of rising healthcare or stagnant thereof, premiums fluctuate greatly for different demographics. ACA is only trying to level the playing field for everyone.

lifegoesonbrah said:

There is a difference between insuring a piece of machinery and a human being. A vehicle is valued at a set amount, the insurance costs take the value of the vehicle and the costs of repairs into consideration when determining costs to insure. If the costs of repairing vehicles increased, so would the cost of insurance. No? I am not understanding your point and am unconvinced that the rise in overall healthcare costs has not directly contributed to the rise in premiums. You have not proved this.

Click to expand...

No. That is not how insurance works. There is a minor correlation between cost of vehicle and price of insurance, the rest of the premium is attributed to the number of insurance pool participants, the level of insurance coverage, and factors like environment variables, will the car more likely get stolen, will it more likely get into an accident, etc etc.

Coverage of your vehicle or boat is not unlike your coverage of yourself, in terms of actuarial data points. It does differ in coverage, for obvious reasons. One is a human body, the other a machine.

see4 said:

Don't put words in my mouth and think you've made a valid argument. Try again. I was trying to be polite and only provide you with the information I could. You clearly want to go down the douchebag rabbit-hole. So we can go that route. re: deluding yourself into believing events -- Do you even have a full grasp of the English language? You dumb fuck. I actually pay less for almost the exact same insurance. My deductible is $2000 a year now, and it was 6 years ago. My copay is $50 now, it was $25 then. All else is equal, except I pay less per month. You slimy prick, you have nothing to argue so you attempt to put words in my mouth in the hopes that I won't notice. Piece of shit. You are as worthless as the glasses I put on your moms face right before I spackle her in the eye with my jizz. Now, if you would like to return to a civil debate, we can. Totally up to you sport.

Click to expand...

Tell us more how "civilized" you are.. You seem to be describing two policies, BOTH pre-ACA. Your argument is irrelevant. Getting all belligerent because I pointed it out is uncalled for. Pretending I put words in your mouth is just a lie. Your idea of a civil debate seems to be you screaming obscenities at those not willing to give your statements the merit you think you deserve. Your idea of civil debate and mine are far apart. Good Day, Sir.

Red1966 said:

Tell us more how "civilized" you are.. You seem to be describing two policies, BOTH pre-ACA. Your argument is irrelevant. Getting all belligerent because I pointed it out is uncalled for. Pretending I put words in your mouth is just a lie. Your idea of a civil debate seems to be you screaming obscenities at those not willing to give your statements the merit you think you deserve. Your idea of civil debate and mine are far apart. Good Day, Sir.

Click to expand...

Yea, that's what I thought. In the face of fact you back down and/or change the subject. Pussy.

I didn't scream anything, I calmly typed it out while high on some Blue Dream. You took it as me screaming. Pussy.

"Pretending I put words in your mouth is just a lie." - Ok smartypants, quote me. Find where I said I now pay less for not so amazing insurance. Find it. Quote me.