obamacare

[Azazello1313]

Fewer Emergency Rooms Available as Need Rises

 

New report finds medical costs to rise 8.5 percent in 2012

[wiegie]

New report finds medical costs to rise 8.5 percent in 2012

from the above link

"Health reform is pressuring employers, providers, insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to be more cost-conscious and accountable for costs, quality and performance," PwC's Michael Galper said in a statement, "and they will need to work together to provide better, coordinated care, greater transparency in pricing and more patient-friendly practices."

[Clubfoothead]

Fewer Emergency Rooms Available as Need Rises

 

Too much work to read all the way down to the second paragraph that indicates a 20 year trend?

 

Interesting:

“This suggests market forces play a larger role in the distribution and availability of care” in the United States, Dr. Hsia said, especially emergency care. “We can’t expect the market to allocate critical resources like these in an equitable way.”

 

The second blog is pwc's estimate. At least they have no agenda.

[yo mama]

Fewer Emergency Rooms Available as Need Rises

 

New report finds medical costs to rise 8.5 percent in 2012

I like how the emergency rooms that are closing are the ones that are "commercially operated." Bottom line - were screwed regardless of whether medical care is run by the government or the free market.

[SEC=UGA]

INDIANAPOLIS — Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a new survey from a large benefits consultant.

 

Towers Watson also found in a survey completed last month that an additional 20 percent of the companies are unsure about what they will do.

 

Another big benefits consultant, Mercer, found in a June survey of large and smaller employers that 8 percent are either "likely" or "very likely" to end health benefits once the exchanges start.

 

Employer-sponsored health insurance has long been the backbone of the nation's health insurance system. But the studies suggest that some employers, especially retailers or those offering low wages, feel they will be better off paying fines and taxes than continuing to provide benefits that eat up a growing portion of their budget every year.

 

The exchanges, which were devised under the health care overhaul, may offer an alternative for their workers. These exchanges aim to provide a marketplace for people to buy insurance that can be subsidized by the government based on income levels.

 

A large majority of employers in both studies said they expect to continue offering benefits once the exchanges start. But former insurance executive Bob Laszewski said he was surprised that as many as 8 or 9 percent of companies already expect to drop coverage a couple of years before the exchanges start.

 

Such a move comes with potential payroll-tax headaches and could subject firms to fines. It also would give their employees a steep compensation cut if companies don't raise pay in exchange for ending coverage.

 

"Dropping coverage is going to be very difficult for these (companies) to do," said Laszewski, a consultant who was not involved with the studies.

 

Towers Watson's Randall Abbott said the survey results should be seen as a snapshot of how companies are thinking now. They can't be viewed as a final decision because there are still many unresolved variables. No one knows what the exchanges will be like or whether consumers will accept them, and companies may change their thinking once they learn more about the overhaul.

 

The health care overhaul also faces court challenges, and President Obama is up for re-election next year, two more variables that could shape what happens in 2014.

 

 

Read more: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/n.../#ixzz1VyK3iJH6

[Savage Beatings]

I'm pretty sure 2 or maybe even 3 Federal Courts have now ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Why are we still ignoring those rulings?

[SEC=UGA]

I'm pretty sure 2 or maybe even 3 Federal Courts have now ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Why are we still ignoring those rulings?

 

Only the individual mandate part.

[bushwacked]

I'm pretty sure 2 or maybe even 3 Federal Courts have now ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Why are we still ignoring those rulings?

 

3 Federal courts have also ruled it wasn't unconstitutional.

[tosberg34]

Only the individual mandate part.

 

which is the lynchpin to the entire thing. Take that out and it all falls apart.

[wiegie]

which is the lynchpin to the entire thing. Take that out and it all falls apart.

this is correct

 

It's going to the Supreme Court so we will just have to wait and see how it rules.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Healthcare reform is forcing providers to change their model from a fee for service to a fee for outcome. IMO this will cause alot of short term pain but long term benefit for the entire system. Those providers that do a better job in improving the outcomes of their patients will be rewarded while those who do not will not. Seems logical to me.

[westvirginia]

Healthcare reform is forcing providers to change their model from a fee for service to a fee for outcome. IMO this will cause alot of short term pain but long term benefit for the entire system. Those providers that do a better job in improving the outcomes of their patients will be rewarded while those who do not will not. Seems logical to me.

 

Let's assume I agree with your premise - that a paradigm shift is occuring in how HC is priced. When I take a car to the shop, the fee for outcome and fee for service is the same thing. The human body isn't necessarily like that. People react differently to different medicines, and despite what some would have you believe, doctors can do everything right and still an infection can set in, or a patient can reject some medicine, or

[Pope Flick]

this is correct

 

It's going to the Supreme Court so we will just have to wait and see how it rules.

 

Not entirely true. The portions regarding abolition of preexisting have not been overturned for example. That and several other important aspects are on different legal ground than a Commerce Clause challenge, so there's a lot of play here.

[Azazello1313]

Healthcare reform is forcing providers to change their model from a fee for service to a fee for outcome. IMO this will cause alot of short term pain but long term benefit for the entire system. Those providers that do a better job in improving the outcomes of their patients will be rewarded while those who do not will not. Seems logical to me.

 

how exactly is obamacare forcing providers toward a fee-for-outcome model? (I ask out of genuine curiosity, not necessarily to suggest it doesn't)

 

and, "fee for outcome"....thinking through it, that really just sounds like code for a rather crass form of rationing. if you get paid for outcomes, you're going to perform the procedures that have a high likelihood of working, at a low cost to you. what's that mr. terminal cancer patient? you'd like a treatment that costs $10,000 that only has a 5% chance of saving your life? uhhwelluh, sorry I think I'll go take out a gall bladder instead so I can actually get paid.

[wiegie]

Not entirely true. The portions regarding abolition of preexisting have not been overturned for example.

This is exactly why the whole system falls apart without a mandate. If people know that they cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, there is very little reason why they would buy insurance before they needed it. You get a major adverse selection problem and the whole thing falls apart.

 

The mandate is there so that insurers know that customers aren't gaming the system by only buying insurance when they need it.

 

(I'll note that in the open market right now, insurers pretty much already assume that the people who are willing to buy insurance are the ones who are most likely to need it--hence the premiums are much higher for normal individuals looking to buy insurance than they should be according what the actual risks are for most individuals. (It is the ability of employers to pool groups of insurees together, along with tax provisions, that explains why people most often get their insurance through their workplace.))

[Azazello1313]

The mandate is there so that insurers know that customers aren't gaming the system by only buying insurance when they need it.

 

true, but the individual mandate as structured does a pretty poor job of that. the penalty is typically much smaller than the cost of insurance. which means it doesn't come close to actually dealing with the adverse selection problem created by the provisions dealing with pre-existing conditions.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Pope Flick]

This is exactly why the whole system falls apart without a mandate. If people know that they cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, there is very little reason why they would buy insurance before they needed it. You get a major adverse selection problem and the whole thing falls apart.

 

The mandate is there so that insurers know that customers aren't gaming the system by only buying insurance when they need it.

 

(I'll note that in the open market right now, insurers pretty much already assume that the people who are willing to buy insurance are the ones who are most likely to need it--hence the premiums are much higher for normal individuals looking to buy insurance than they should be according what the actual risks are for most individuals. (It is the ability of employers to pool groups of insurees together, along with tax provisions, that explains why people most often get their insurance through their workplace.))

 

 

Again, not entirely true. That still doesn't mean the issue of severance doesn't overturn the mandate while leaving the abolition of pre-existing coverage intact. That very well could happen and would have to be dealt with, as we would be left with that reality. Which, IMO is STILL better than the existing system.

 

ETA - az's point of the fines not being large enough is STILL an issue as well.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Pope Flick

[gbpfan1231]

Insurance costs are going DOWN in Wisconsin.

 

Edit: Only for districts that were required to buy insurance from WEA Trust - A union owned insurance company.

 

If you want to lower your insurance all you need to do is overpay for years and years and then end collective bargaining and it will go down when you put it out to bid. It is all really simple.

 

Also - if a lot of companies stop offering insurance all Obama needs is to have one company still offer it and he can claim it is balanced.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

INDIANAPOLIS — Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a new survey from a large benefits consultant.

 

Towers Watson also found in a survey completed last month that an additional 20 percent of the companies are unsure about what they will do.

 

Another big benefits consultant, Mercer, found in a June survey of large and smaller employers that 8 percent are either "likely" or "very likely" to end health benefits once the exchanges start.

 

They haven't released the details on this latest survey although I think that only about 360 employers were surveyed.

 

The CBO predicted that 7% of companies would send employees into the Exchange for coverage.

 

Still way to early to predict IMO.

 

I know one thing. I feel a lot better about 7% to 10% working age individuals going into the private exchange to buy insurance than I do about 100% of seniors, which is basically what the Ryan plan is proposing with its changes to Medicare.

[millerx]

They haven't released the details on this latest survey although I think that only about 360 employers were surveyed.

 

The CBO predicted that 7% of companies would send employees into the Exchange for coverage.

 

Still way to early to predict IMO.

 

I know one thing. I feel a lot better about 7% to 10% working age individuals going into the private exchange to buy insurance than I do about 100% of seniors, which is basically what the Ryan plan is proposing with its changes to Medicare.

Edit:

minus the politicians themselves who do not have to participate in the plan.

 

hypocrites.

[Ursa Majoris]

(It is the ability of employers to pool groups of insurees together, along with tax provisions, that explains why people most often get their insurance through their workplace.))

Logic therefore dictates that the lowest cost would be by grouping the largest numbers.