Obamacare saved seniors an average $600 on medical care this year

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

"The average beneficiary who falls into the coverage gap would have spent $1,504 this year on prescriptions. But thanks to discounts and other provisions in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, that cost fell to $901, according to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which handles economic estimates."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/aca_shrinks_doughnut_hole_for033766.php

The saving was driven primarily by a 50% discount in the cost of name brand drugs bought by government as part of medicare.

Republicans, who continue to pretend to care about reducing the cost of healthcare, continue to oppose Obamacare reforms like these.

**biccat**

One would expect that someone is saving money on this.

The plan is costing a trillion dollars over 10 years, if no one is getting the benefit of that, then there's an even more serious problem than previously expected.

The important question to ask isn't "how much are people saving?" but rather "how much benefit are we getting for the money paid?"

I can set up a tremendously popular program handing out $100 bills on the street corner. But if it costs the government $105 for each bill then there's a problem.

**sebster**

biccat wrote:One would expect that someone is saving money on this.

The plan is costing a trillion dollars over 10 years, if no one is getting the benefit of that, then there's an even more serious problem than previously expected.

The important question to ask isn't "how much are people saving?" but rather "how much benefit are we getting for the money paid?"

I can set up a tremendously popular program handing out $100 bills on the street corner. But if it costs the government $105 for each bill then there's a problem.

You should read the article, it would help you with learning things.

The cost to the government of that $600 is $20. That's the cost of the generic drugs now provided under medicare. Meanwhile, $580 per capita is saved through a new deal in which government is paying vastly reduced amounts for name brand drugs.

I would love to be able to set up a program handing out $100 notes, that only cost government $3. I would like to think it would make me very popular. I suspect you would complain about that program, because boo hiss bad Obama.

**biccat**

sebster wrote:You should read the article, it would help you with learning things.

Indeed it would. Perhaps you should try the same.

sebster wrote:The cost to the government of that $600 is $20.

Presumably you're relying on this quote:

Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

That doesn't mean that Medicare spent only $22 to save $600, it means that Medicare "picked up" (that is, took on) "more" (in addition to what it previously spent) "of the cost" (how much money people pay) "of generic" (non-name brand) "drugs" (pharmaceuticals) "saving" (reducing the out-of-pocket expense) "an additional" (more than previously accounted for) "$22" (US, presumably).

sebster wrote:That's the cost of the generic drugs now provided under medicare.

No, there's no comment in the article that says how much generic drugs provided under Medicare cost. Those costs will vary from person-to-person and drug-to-drug.

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, $580 per capita

Wow, so now 100% of the population are not only on Medicare, but in the donut hole. I knew that aging population in the west was a problem, but not this much of a problem!

sebster wrote:is saved through a new deal in which government is paying vastly reduced amounts for name brand drugs.

Again, you're drawing a conclusion from facts which are not presented.

sebster wrote:I would love to be able to set up a program handing out $100 notes, that only cost government $3. I would like to think it would make me very popular. I suspect you would complain about that program, because boo hiss bad Obama.

Yes, the failings of this article and biased perspective you're posting from are totally because I hate Obama. There's no responsibility for you or the person making poorly thought out and even more poorly sourced claims.

edit: and if you're interested (estimated amounts):
2011 Medicare spending is $551b (or about $9,000 per beneficiary).
2010 Medicare spending was $509b (or about $8,300 per beneficiary).

**sebster**

biccat wrote:Presumably you're relying on this quote:

Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

No, I'm relying on this bit;

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581.

It was the sentence directly before the one you quoted. And yet somehow you completely missed it. Bizarre.

That doesn't mean that Medicare spent only $22 to save $600, it means that Medicare "picked up" (that is, took on) "more" (in addition to what it previously spent) "of the cost" (how much money people pay) "of generic" (non-name brand) "drugs" (pharmaceuticals) "saving" (reducing the out-of-pocket expense) "an additional" (more than previously accounted for) "$22" (US, presumably).

No, it means that the government saved seniors $20 each by picking up drugs they previously had to pay for. Meanwhile, it saved them another $580 per head through a deal that saw them paying 50% less for name brand drugs.

This is something you'd have known if you read the sentence "A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581." I seriously do not know how you missed it. I mean, the whole article was about a dozen sentences, and yet you missed that whole sentence. I'd even referred to it in my opening post, and that was only four sentences.

How did you miss that?

No, there's no comment in the article that says how much generic drugs provided under Medicare cost. Those costs will vary from person-to-person and drug-to-drug.

It says on average $20 in generic drugs are now provided for by government. Obviously that figure doesn't mean exactly $20 to everyone. You know that. Don't be silly.

Wow, so now 100% of the population are not only on Medicare, but in the donut hole. I knew that aging population in the west was a problem, but not this much of a problem!

Per capita means per the affected population. The population was given in the thread title, when I said seniors. If you are incapable of understanding context, please say so, and I will endeavour in future to explain exactly what population is being considered by the term 'per capita' each time I use it in future.

So please stop being silly, just acknowledge that there's a saving of $600 per person affected, at a cost of $20 per person to government. You can still complain about other elements of Obamacare, but basic intellectual honesty demands you accept that saving someone $600 on average, while costing government $20 on average is a good deal.

But you won't, because you're a loyal footsoldier, and that means booing Obama at every opportunity, common sense and reason be damned.

Again, you're drawing a conclusion from facts which are not presented.

Wow, you really, really should have read that article, shouldn't you;

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581.

Yes, the failings of this article and biased perspective you're posting from are totally because I hate Obama. There's no responsibility for you or the person making poorly thought out and even more poorly sourced claims.

The article took it's figures from the actuary office of Medicare. It was right there in the article. So now it's clear there is at least two sentences you completely missed.

You are really, horribly bad at this.

EDIT
An in response to your edit;

edit: and if you're interested (estimated amounts):
2011 Medicare spending is $551b (or about $9,000 per beneficiary).
2010 Medicare spending was $509b (or about $8,300 per beneficiary).

Here are some quotes from the article you posted;
"Medicare’s relatively low growth rate is largely due to provisions in the 2010 health reform law."
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 includes more than $424 billion in net Medicare spending reductions over a ten-year period, reducing annual payment updates to hospitals and other providers and payments to Medicare Advantage plans."
"Altogether, the Medicare provisions included in the law were projected to reduce Medicare spending by 6% over ten years."

You are putting in a staggeringly awful effort in this thread.

**biccat**

sebster wrote:No, I'm relying on this bit;

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581.

Ah, one wonders what the pharmaceutical companies got in exchange for the 50% discount.

The article you linked isn't giving the whole story, which is the entire point I made in my initial point. It's unsurprising that you're refusing to address this point.

sebster wrote:It was the sentence directly before the one you quoted. And yet somehow you completely missed it. Bizarre.

Accepting the honesty of this article (which is up for debate), the average savings for a person is $581 for brand-name and $22 for generics.

Could you please explain again how you're getting this miraculous $20 cost?

sebster wrote:No, it means that the government saved seniors $20 each by picking up drugs they previously had to pay for. Meanwhile, it saved them another $580 per head through a deal that saw them paying 50% less for name brand drugs.

*sigh*...that's the question I'm asking. How much is the government paying for that $20 savings?

sebster wrote:This is something you'd have known if you read the sentence "A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581." I seriously do not know how you missed it. I mean, the whole article was about a dozen sentences, and yet you missed that whole sentence. I'd even referred to it in my opening post, and that was only four sentences.

If you're going to actually answer my question: "how much benefit are we getting for the money spent?", then I'd love to hear it.

Since we're playing fast and loose with statistics, the links I provided show that spending per person increased more than $700. Seniors are saving only about $600 on their drugs. It's a bad deal. (Hopefully you can figure out what's wrong with this sentence.)

sebster wrote:It says on average $20 in generic drugs are now provided for by government. Obviously that figure doesn't mean exactly $20 to everyone. You know that. Don't be silly.

No, that's not what it says. You obviously don't understand the context of what is being reported.

Medicare recipients make up a small portion of the population as a whole. Those in the 'donut hole' make up a small population of those on Medicare. This article only deals with beneficiaries who fall into the coverage gap, which are a small number of participants.

sebster wrote:Per capita means per the affected population. The population was given in the thread title, when I said seniors.

Of course, by now (hopefully) you understand that it's not all seniors.

sebster wrote:So please stop being silly, just acknowledge that there's a saving of $600 per person affected

I have no problem accepting this. If you pass out $100 bills to people, I don't dispute that they'll be $100 richer.

sebster wrote:at a cost of $20 per person to government.

It's this assertion that I have a problem with. Because your article, nor do your comments, address the issue of spending. Nor do they address the total amount of savings from this change.

sebster wrote:You can still complain about other elements of Obamacare, but basic intellectual honesty demands you accept that saving someone $600 on average, while costing government $20 on average is a good deal.

That would be a good deal.

But that's not this deal.

sebster wrote:An in response to your edit;

edit: and if you're interested (estimated amounts):
2011 Medicare spending is $551b (or about $9,000 per beneficiary).
2010 Medicare spending was $509b (or about $8,300 per beneficiary).

Here are some quotes from the article you posted;
"Medicare’s relatively low growth rate is largely due to provisions in the 2010 health reform law."
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 includes more than $424 billion in net Medicare spending reductions over a ten-year period, reducing annual payment updates to hospitals and other providers and payments to Medicare Advantage plans."
"Altogether, the Medicare provisions included in the law were projected to reduce Medicare spending by 6% over ten years."

I didn't post the articles for their conclusions (they rated Medicare at 3.4% growth rate, which they assumed would be the rate of GDP growth, but current numbers peg it around 2%), but for the data presented.

sebster wrote:You are putting in a staggeringly awful effort in this thread

Well, you get what you give seb.

(most) personal insults and inflammatory comments redacted.

**sebster**

biccat wrote:Ah, one wonders what the pharmaceutical companies got in exchange for the 50% discount.

Who knows? Likely it comes from the bargaining power of government being a buyer for so many people, so that companies would be forced to offer reduced rates or lose a major buyer to their competitors. But if you suspect otherwise, please go and read about it, and come back with new information. That would actually be contributing to the thread.

Accepting the honesty of this article (which is up for debate), the average savings for a person is $581 for brand-name and $22 for generics.

Uh huh, read a number you don't like, call the author a liar. That's a pretty good way to avoid ever dealing with facts you don't like. Even if it means you end up in the absurd position of calling the actuary office of Medicare liars, it sure beats learning something.

Could you please explain again how you're getting this miraculous $20 cost?

The portion of savings covered by government assuming the cost previously born by the senior is $22, which I rounded to $20 for simplicity's sake. That really, really shouldn't have been a question you needed to ask.

*sigh*...that's the question I'm asking. How much is the government paying for that $20 savings?

Okay... I'll type it slower this time. The government is paying $20 for that $20 savings. It used to be Ethyl paid, as an example, $110 a year for generic medicines, now she's going to pay $90, with that $20 being picked up by government. At the same time, she used to pay $1,400 for name brand medications, and now she's going to pay $820, with the $580 savings being covered by drug companies simply receiving less for their medications.

If you're going to actually answer my question: "how much benefit are we getting for the money spent?", then I'd love to hear it.

Each person in the scheme is spending $600 less, on average. How do you not understand that? Are you trolling? Or drunk? What is going on here?

Since we're playing fast and loose with statistics, the links I provided show that spending per person increased more than $700.

You are most certainly playing fast and loose with statistics, since your figures didn't account for the increasing portion of the population on medicare this year, or the general trend of rising health costs. Fortunately, though, the article you posted did account for such things, and they found;
"Medicare’s relatively low growth rate is largely due to provisions in the 2010 health reform law."
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 includes more than $424 billion in net Medicare spending reductions over a ten-year period, reducing annual payment updates to hospitals and other providers and payments to Medicare Advantage plans."
"Altogether, the Medicare provisions included in the law were projected to reduce Medicare spending by 6% over ten years."

Seniors are saving only about $600 on their drugs. It's a bad deal. (Hopefully you can figure out what's wrong with this sentence.)

The problem with the sentence is that you don't understand how cost saving measures are to be judged.

Of course, by now (hopefully) you understand that it's not all seniors.

Fair point, I did misstate there.

I have no problem accepting this. If you pass out $100 bills to people, I don't dispute that they'll be $100 richer.

But they passed out $600 bills, and they only cost $20. And you continue to pretend this isn't true.

It's this assertion that I have a problem with. Because your article, nor do your comments, address the issue of spending. Nor do they address the total amount of savings from this change.

What the feth?
"A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22."

That would be a good deal.

But that's not this deal.

What the feth?
"A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22."

I didn't post the articles for their conclusions (they rated Medicare at 3.4% growth rate, which they assumed would be the rate of GDP growth, but current numbers peg it around 2%), but for the data presented.

So they're your articles, but you don't stand by anything in there.

You just think you can post single year changes in medicare figures, and pretend that's a measure of a cost saving policy.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Weeeeee!!! Multiquoteing bickering goodness.

The news in this article does good things for the warm and fuzzy feelings in my gut, glad to see that progress seems to have been made.

**sebster**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Weeeeee!!! Multiquoteing bickering goodness.

The news in this article does good things for the warm and fuzzy feelings in my gut, glad to see that progress seems to have been made.

It is only a small step forward, and many more steps need to be made, but unfortunately as you can see from the response, a certain group of people are so committed to the idea of resistance they're going to make it stupidly hard to improve things.

**ShumaGorath**

sebster wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Weeeeee!!! Multiquoteing bickering goodness.

The news in this article does good things for the warm and fuzzy feelings in my gut, glad to see that progress seems to have been made.

It is only a small step forward, and many more steps need to be made, but unfortunately as you can see from the response, a certain group of people are so committed to the idea of resistance they're going to make it stupidly hard to improve things.

The glories of democracy in the yellow media age, eh? It's why the whole things gonna collapse y'know. It's too easy to turn people ignorant with pretty words and HTML echo chambers and it's too easy to monetize that ignorance. Functioning democracy can't survive the will of it's own people in the internet age for much longer I'd reckon.

Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the biggest badass in the world. ...You used to feel this way, too, but then you ran into Melissia. In a way, this is liberating. You no longer have to worry about being the biggest badass in the world.

The position is taken.

I am 25, have met you (on a forum) and still think that!

**Melissia**

Uh huh, read a number you don't like, call the author a liar.

It's pretty much how Republicans have worked for quite some time.

**mstersmith3**

Melissia wrote:
Uh huh, read a number you don't like, call the author a liar.
It's pretty much how Republicans have worked for quite some time.

The door swings both ways on that one.

**Melissia**

mstersmith3 wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Uh huh, read a number you don't like, call the author a liar.
It's pretty much how Republicans have worked for quite some time.

The door swings both ways on that one.

True, but I have special disdain for "trickle down"...

**sebster**

ShumaGorath wrote:The glories of democracy in the yellow media age, eh? It's why the whole things gonna collapse y'know. It's too easy to turn people ignorant with pretty words and HTML echo chambers and it's too easy to monetize that ignorance. Functioning democracy can't survive the will of it's own people in the internet age for much longer I'd reckon.

I agree it's a huge problem. I doubt democracy will collapse, instead it'll likely just muddle along as it always has, with special interest groups bullshitting their way into taking whatever they can, and most people

Sometimes it doesn't bother me that much, because of the whole "democracy is the people getting what they deserve, and getting it good and hard" thing. Other times, well, they're still people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mstersmith3 wrote:The door swings both ways on that one.

This is definitely true.

**poda_t**

biccat wrote:One would expect that someone is saving money on this.

The plan is costing a trillion dollars over 10 years, if no one is getting the benefit of that, then there's an even more serious problem than previously expected.

The important question to ask isn't "how much are people saving?" but rather "how much benefit are we getting for the money paid?"

I can set up a tremendously popular program handing out $100 bills on the street corner. But if it costs the government $105 for each bill then there's a problem.

simple; no taxes, no benefit. end of story.

**Piston Honda**

Save me a 11 grand this year with my eye surgery. Otherwise I would have to pay out of pocket.

Pre-existing condition?

Awww to bad. Look for a faith base solution. AKA pickle jar at the gas station.

**Melissia**

Bleh, faith healing. Lot of snake oil salesmen scumbags. Let's just avoid that topic...

**Piston Honda**

Melissia wrote:Bleh, faith healing. Lot of snake oil salesmen scumbags. Let's just avoid that topic...

By faith base solution I was not referring to "cure the illness away". But have your Church start fundraisers for you. Which rarely ever meet the need to cover the bills. Not even close. I see it a lot, be it in person or on the news. I applaud them for having a heart, but much more is needed than a bake sale over the weekend.

And for those who don't attend church...

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
I can set up a tremendously popular program handing out $100 bills on the street corner. But if it costs the government $105 for each bill then there's a problem.

Unless the administrative staff actually handing out the $100 bills are exclusively volunteers, any program to provide services that is not based on added value will necessarily cost more than the total value of services delivered. Even the most efficient charities in the world do not transfer all funds taken in to the focus of their charity, because they have to pay people to actually administer the charity. This isn't a problem, its the nature charities and entitlement programs, and while administrative costs absolutely be minimized, they're never going to be eliminated.

**BrassScorpion**

It also prevents the insurance company from doing a lot of bad things to you that they like to do that save them money but leave you bankrupt when you're ill, like canceling your coverage or denying it to your baby when you have one. Ordinary people simply cannot afford to be ill without insurance and many can't afford that. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA is due to medical problems and most of the people going bankrupt are working class people with insurance. Insurance just doesn't cover enough if you have a catastrophic, long-term or chronic illness or injury.

Bill Maher, from New New Rules

TEA Rx: If conservatives can call it Obamacare, every time a family is forced to file for bankruptcy due to a medical misfortune, or a sick child is dropped by his insurance company, or a patient dies because she can’t afford surgery, we get to call it: “Tea Bagger Care.”

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/does-us-have-worlds-best-health-care-system-yes-if-youre-talking-about-third-world

November 28th, 2011 10:30 AM
Does the U.S. Have the World's Best Health Care System? Yes, If You're Talking About the Third World

By Wendell Potter

A little more than a year ago, on the day after the GOP regained control of the House of Representatives, Speaker-to-be John Boehner said one of the first orders of business after he took charge would be the repeal of health care reform.

"I believe that the health care bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country," Boehner said at a press conference. "That means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms to bring down the cost of health care."

Boehner is not the first nor the only Republican to try to make us believe that the U.S. has the world's best health care system and that we're bound to lose that distinction because of Obamacare. I've heard GOP candidates for president say the same thing in recent months, charging that we need to get rid of a President who clearly is trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing, something that isn't broken in the first place.

Well, those guys need to get out more. Out of the country, in fact. They need to travel to at least one of the many countries that are doing a much better job of delivering high quality care at much lower costs than the good old USA.

If they're not interested in a fact-finding mission abroad, then perhaps they might take a look at two recent reports before they make any other statements about the quality of American health care.

Last week, the 34-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD) released the results of its most recent study of the health care systems in its member countries, including the U.S., plus six others, for a total of 40. And those results are illuminating.

If Boehner and his fellow Republicans had characterized the U.S. system as the most expensive in the world, they would have been right on target. But they would have been way off base by calling it the best.

The OECD report is just the most recent evidence that Americans are not getting nearly as much bang for the health care buck as citizens of most other developed countries -- and even some countries in the developing world.

The OECD found that the United States spends two-and-a-half times more on health care per person than the OECD average. The U.S. even spends more than twice as much as France, which many experts contend has one of the best health care systems on the planet.

The average expenditure per person in the U.S. is $7,960, a third more than in Norway, the second highest. The OECD average, by comparison, is just $3,233. (It is $3,873 in France.)

Here are some reasons why: Hospital spending is 60 percent higher than the average of five other relatively expensive countries (Switzerland, Canada, Germany, France and Japan); spending on pharmaceuticals and medical goods is much higher here than any of the other countries; and administrative costs are more than two-and-a-half times the average of the others.

It was not all bad news for us. We're number one in the five-year breast cancer survival rate and number two (behind Japan) in the five-year colorectal cancer survival rate. We're also number one in costly knee replacements and number two (again behind Japan) in the number of MRI units per million people.

But we rank 29th in the number of hospital beds per person and 29th in the average length of a stay in the hospital. And we have high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for people with asthma, lung disease, diabetes, hypertension and other common illnesses.

When it comes to access to physicians, we're also near the bottom of the pack. We rank 26th in the number of physicians, especially primary care or family doctors, per 1,000 people.

In terms of life expectancy, we rank 28th, just behind Chile. The average age of death in the U.S. is 78.2, well below the average of 79.5 years in the other OCED countries.

The OECD study backs up the results of a report released by the Commonwealth Fund in October, which showed that the U.S. is actually losing ground to other countries in assuring that its citizens have equal access to affordable, efficient care.

The Commonwealth Fund "scorecard" found that the U.S. is failing to keep up with gains in health outcomes made by other nations. We now rank last out of 16 countries in the Commonwealth Fund study when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.

A big reason for the dismal results is the fact that more and more Americans are falling into the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured. As of last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund, 81 million adults in the U.S. -- 44 percent of all adults under age 65 -- were either uninsured or underinsured at some point during the year, up from 61 million as recently as 2003.

So the next time you hear a politician claim that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, be aware that he or she is trying to get you to believe something that is demonstrably not true, undoubtedly for no reason other than to advance their political agenda. We deserve better -- in both rhetoric and results.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:It is only a small step forward, and many more steps need to be made, but unfortunately as you can see from the response, a certain group of people are so committed to the idea of resistance they're going to make it stupidly hard to improve things.

In their defense, they have been clear and forthright about their intent and their goal from the beginning. The number one job of the GOP leadership, as we know, is not to win the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, it's not to reduce our spending, it's not to increase the health of the populace or reduce our runaway obesity, it's not to strengthen our relationships with our allies, it's not to reduce our unemployment, it's not to safeguard our borders, it's not to to prosecute the war on terror or the war on drugs, it's not to remove the structural defects in the banking industry that nearly allowed our economy to collapse just a few short years ago, it's to defeat Obama in the 2012 election. Because that's what really matters.

Democrats vacillate and appease and rationalize and explain. Republicans tell you right up front they are going to act like total tools if you elect them, and it works. it works over and over and over again.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:In their defense, they have been clear and forthright about their intent and their goal from the beginning. The number one job of the GOP leadership, as we know, is not to win the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, it's not to reduce our spending, it's not to increase the health of the populace or reduce our runaway obesity, it's not to strengthen our relationships with our allies, it's not to reduce our unemployment, it's not to safeguard our borders, it's not to to prosecute the war on terror or the war on drugs, it's not to remove the structural defects in the banking industry that nearly allowed our economy to collapse just a few short years ago, it's to defeat Obama in the 2012 election. Because that's what really matters.

True. It amazes me that the Republicans are so honest in saying it as well, but then I look at the footsoldiers of the party, who maintain this goofball routine of pretending that isn't the goal of the party while at the same time doing nothing but oppose any move by the Obama administration, and I'm just left baffled.

Democrats vacillate and appease and rationalize and explain. Republicans tell you right up front they are going to act like total tools if you elect them, and it works. it works over and over and over again.

Thing is, the US system is built to require compromise. Even in minority a party can hold things up, basically forever if they're sufficiently partisan. So if you want to get something done, and the other side just wants to feth with you, you can full well know all they want to do is feth with you, and you can even call them on it, but at the end of the day if you're going to try to get something done, you still have to try and enter negotiations. Lucy will inevitably take the football away, but what else can Charlie do?

**Jihadin**

Now.....what? who? What? Exactly am I defending?....on the side note...pay your taxes so I can ollect when I retire

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:"The average beneficiary who falls into the coverage gap would have spent $1,504 this year on prescriptions. But thanks to discounts and other provisions in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, that cost fell to $901, according to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which handles economic estimates."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/aca_shrinks_doughnut_hole_for033766.php

The saving was driven primarily by a 50% discount in the cost of name brand drugs bought by government as part of medicare.

Republicans, who continue to pretend to care about reducing the cost of healthcare, continue to oppose Obamacare reforms like these.

Thats such a lie I am foaming at the mouth. Mom's chemo was nearly $500 a treatment. When queried as Dad's treatment averaged $200 a pop, the Doc confirmed thats a change after Obama Care RAIDED MEDICARE OF $500BN. Mammograms were disconintued for older women and premium costs rose for Medicare supplemental plans because OBAMA CARE specifically pulled the money for those plans. If it weren't for me should would not have been able to afford it the multithousand dollar bill.

The author is a liar. People who support this argument with false facts are liars and charlatans who don't have a clue. Flat out liars and they are on the list of people who can suck my

.

Note: The above is not directed at Sebster or any other poster on this board, unless they are cats, of course, then they deserve to die. The wiener dogs wish it so.

**Pacific**

44% of adults under 65 without health insurance?

It was obvious something needed to be done, but no doubt the next time a Republican government comes into power the first thing they do will be repeal any kind of social healthcare.

Is there any way that such an act can become part of the constitution? In the UK, after the second world war the Labour party came into power (Churchill and the Conservatives didn't hang around for long afterwards) and I believe Nigel Bevan (PM at the time) made the National Health Service something that could not be immediately revoked by future governments. Although I believe the idea was actually forwarded by the Conservatives as well during the 2nd world war.

Is there the possibility of anything similar happening in the US? From the outside, the government seems practically paralysed by partisan politics and one-upmanship, something that isn't needed when the country needs to defend its position as the largest economy from the rising powers in the east.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Thats such a lie I am foaming at the mouth. Mom's chemo was nearly $500 a treatment. When queried as Dad's treatment averaged $200 a pop, the Doc confirmed thats a change after Obama Care RAIDED MEDICARE OF $500BN. Mammograms were disconintued for older women and premium costs rose for Medicare supplemental plans because OBAMA CARE specifically pulled the money for those plans. If it weren't for me should would not have been able to afford it the multithousand dollar bill.

The author is a liar. People who support this argument with false facts are liars and charlatans who don't have a clue. Flat out liars and they are on the list of people who can suck my .

Note: The above is not directed at Sebster or any other poster on this board, unless they are cats, of course, then they deserve to die. The wiener dogs wish it so.

Its still possible that the average annual medical expenses of covered individuals have decreased under Obamacare if things like cancer treatment are have a lower impact on the overall medical expenses of covered individuals than things like prescription drugs. If that's the case, then the author isn't a liar, he's simply talking about systemic concerns rather than more specific issues, like the coverage on cancer treatment.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats such a lie I am foaming at the mouth. Mom's chemo was nearly $500 a treatment. When queried as Dad's treatment averaged $200 a pop, the Doc confirmed thats a change after Obama Care RAIDED MEDICARE OF $500BN. Mammograms were disconintued for older women and premium costs rose for Medicare supplemental plans because OBAMA CARE specifically pulled the money for those plans. If it weren't for me should would not have been able to afford it the multithousand dollar bill.

The author is a liar. People who support this argument with false facts are liars and charlatans who don't have a clue. Flat out liars and they are on the list of people who can suck my .

Note: The above is not directed at Sebster or any other poster on this board, unless they are cats, of course, then they deserve to die. The wiener dogs wish it so.

Its still possible that the average annual medical expenses of covered individuals have decreased under Obamacare if things like cancer treatment are have a lower impact on the overall medical expenses of covered individuals than things like prescription drugs. If that's the case, then the author isn't a liar, he's simply talking about systemic concerns rather than more specific issues, like the coverage on cancer treatment.

That can be true D. However Mom's didn't. Her friends didn't. Their prescription costs have gone up significantly each year for ytwo years actually with no COL increase to social security. I trust what I actually see vs. what someone with a vested interest is saying.

**Jihadin**

Insurance premiums went up how high again?

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:Insurance premiums went up how high again?

Define insurance premiums J.

**Easy E**

Well, the removal of pre-existing conditions now let's me switch emplyers a bit easier without me having to worry about my family getting the coverage they need.

Without this change, to swith employers I would need to get a 50% income increase to offset the costs during the switch. I don't really know any employer willing to do that.

The Healthcare Reform Act therefore helped remove a golden hand-cuff and gave me more freedom of employer choice and a greater right to work.

In that context, I can see why Republicans oppose the HealthCare reform Act, considering their secondary goal (after defeating Obama in 2012) is to create cheap labor so you are greatful to your employer for any scraps they toss you.