Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 09:10 AM Mar 2013

The Latest Attack On Obamacare Conveniently Ignores The Law’s Cost-Cutting Provisions

The Latest Attack On Obamacare Conveniently Ignores The Law’s Cost-Cutting Provisions

By Sy Mukherjee

On Tuesday, the Associated Press (AP) published an article recounting a Society of Actuaries (SOA) study that finds health insurance premiums “will jump an average 32 percent for Americans’ individual policies under President Obama’s overhaul.” That titillating claim formed the basis of multiple news agencies’ headlines Wednesday morning, including NBC News, Fox News, and U.S. News and World. But as several other analyses show — and the report’s own authors admit — these assertions are based on an extremely narrow interpretation of the health care law that assumes rising costs in perpetuity while ignoring its very real cost-cutting measures.

In essence, SOA argues that Obamacare provisions extending health coverage to all Americans regardless of their pre-existing medical conditions will dramatically raise costs in the individual insurance market — especially since sicker, older Americans will have guaranteed access to insurance and cannot be charged more than three times the premiums of younger people. The Society’s projections are quite dramatic, finding that premium rate increases by 2017 “would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland.”

Corporate insurance giants have used many of these same arguments to dishonestly justify double-digit rate hikes on their customers, despite soaring profits. But these claims are founded on a baseline that assumes current health care cost trends to be set in stone, and ignore — even by the SOA’s own admission — almost all of Obamacare’s most important consumer protections and market regulations aimed at lowering overall costs. Rick Foster, a retired Medicare actuary, admitted that, although the study’s projections are consistent with certain health care trends, they don’t necessarily reflect the bigger picture:

“Having said that,” Foster added, “actuaries tend to be financially conservative, so the various assumptions might be more inclined to consider what might go wrong than to anticipate that everything will work beautifully.” Actuaries use statistics and economic theory to make long-range cost projections for insurance and pension programs sponsored by businesses and government. <..>]

Kristi Bohn, an actuary who worked on the study, acknowledged it did not attempt to estimate the effect of subsidies, insurer competition and other factors that could mitigate cost increases. She said the goal was to look at the underlying cost of medical care.

In fact, more comprehensive studies of the health reform law that incorporate all of its provisions — rather than just the potentially negative ones — have found that “[m]ost young adults and families will be largely shielded from the full effects of the narrower age rating bands thanks to the ACA’s increased eligibility for Medicaid and tax credits offered through state health insurance exchanges or through access to employer-sponsored insurance,” and that Americans between the ages of 21 and 27 purchasing insurance through the individual market “will be protected by Medicaid/CHIP or exchange-based subsidies under reform.”

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/27/1779961/dishonest-attack-obamacare/

Basically, these are supporters of the status quo cherry picking provisions in the law to justify why insurance companies had to drop coverage for certain individuals and charge seniors up to 30 times more. It's the last desperate attempt at fearmongering.

The reality is that the provisions in place are already making a difference and full implementation in 2014 is going to have a bigger impact.

Editorial

Report Card on Health Care Reform

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Republican leaders in Congress regularly denounce the 2010 Affordable Care Act and vow to block money to carry it out or even to repeal it. Those political attacks ignore the considerable benefits delivered to millions of people since the law’s enactment three years ago Saturday. The main elements of the law do not kick in until Jan. 1, 2014, when many millions of uninsured people will gain coverage. Yet it has already thrown a lifeline to people at high risk of losing insurance or being uninsured, including young adults and people with chronic health problems, and it has made a start toward reforming the costly, dysfunctional American health care system.

EXPANDING COVERAGE Starting in 2010, all insurers and employers that offer dependent coverage were required to offer coverage to dependent children up to age 26. An estimated 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 have been able to stay on or join their parents’ plans as result, with more than 3 million previously uninsured young adults getting health insurance. The law requires private health insurers to provide free preventive care, without co-pays or deductibles. Some 71 million Americans have received at least one free preventive service, like a mammogram or a flu shot, and an additional 34 million older Americans got free preventive services in 2012 under Medicare.

<...>

The law appropriated $11 billion over five years to build and operate community health centers, a major factor in increasing the annual number of patients served to 21 million, a rise of 3 million from previous levels. Some $5 billion has been put into a reinsurance program that has encouraged employers to retain coverage for retirees and their families; 19 million people benefited with reduced premiums or cost-sharing.

<...>

BETTER QUALITY OF CARE One of the most promising aspects of the health reform act is its focus on improving quality. The percentage of Medicare patients requiring readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge dropped from an average of 19 percent over the past five years to 17.8 percent in the last half of 2012, an improvement due in large part to penalties imposed by Medicare for poor performance and financial incentives paid by Medicare to providers to encourage better coordination of care after a patient leaves the hospital.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/report-card-on-health-care-reform.html

Here's a summary of the NYT report:

That includes:

  • Some 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 who have been able to stay on their parents' insurance plans and more than than 3 million young adults getting health insurance.

  • 17 million getting some kind of free preventive service, like flu shots, and 34 million Medicare recipients getting free preventive services in 2012;

  • 17 million children with pre-existing conditions being protected against being uninsured;

  • More than 107,000 adults with pre-existing conditions finally having insurance under the federally run insurance program;

  • 21 million received care from expanded community health centers, 3 million more than previously served;

  • $1.1 billion in rebates, an average of $151 per family paid by insurers that failed to meet the benchmark of 80 to 85 percent of premium revenues on medical claims or quality improvements;

  • Since 2010, more than 6.3 million older or disabled people have saved more than $6.3 billion on prescription drugs;
- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/25/1196892/-An-Affordable-Care-Act-report-card-three-years-in

29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Latest Attack On Obamacare Conveniently Ignores The Law’s Cost-Cutting Provisions (Original Post) ProSense Mar 2013 OP
It's all a guessing game zipplewrath Mar 2013 #1
Reposting this ProSense Mar 2013 #2
Sorta their job zipplewrath Mar 2013 #8
"In the actuaries defense, it's kinda the definition of their job." ProSense Mar 2013 #11
"They" aren't zipplewrath Mar 2013 #13
Maybe ProSense Mar 2013 #15
yeah, that's trashy zipplewrath Mar 2013 #17
Kick for ProSense Mar 2013 #3
My costs haven't been cut. They've increased. LWolf Mar 2013 #4
The report ProSense Mar 2013 #5
So... LWolf Mar 2013 #6
No, ProSense Mar 2013 #7
Well, sorta relief zipplewrath Mar 2013 #9
OK ProSense Mar 2013 #10
But not for everyone zipplewrath Mar 2013 #12
You're ProSense Mar 2013 #14
Careful zipplewrath Mar 2013 #16
Fortunately ProSense Mar 2013 #18
The fact is, LWolf Mar 2013 #19
So ProSense Mar 2013 #20
I'll just sit here waiting for some of that money to come back to me. LWolf Mar 2013 #21
The law ProSense Mar 2013 #22
But your thread is supposedly about cost-cutting. LWolf Mar 2013 #23
No, ProSense Mar 2013 #24
So your thread title LWolf Mar 2013 #25
Clearly, you don't understand the OP. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #26
I clearly don't understand what you are saying LWolf Mar 2013 #27
Suggestion, ProSense Mar 2013 #28
I did read that. LWolf Mar 2013 #29

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
1. It's all a guessing game
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 09:15 AM
Mar 2013

They used very conservative estimates for their conclusions. One of the draw backs of this kind of analysis is a sort of "Heisenberg uncertainty" which is to say that large changes IN markets AFFECT markets. Predicting those effects is difficult. If you don't figure in the effect that large changes in cost will have ON those costs, due to market forces, you'll tend to over estimate the effects.

That said, even the White House is predicting that health care costs will rise around 6 - 7% per year for the foreseeable future. Reality is probably some where in between the conservative estimates, and the White House estimate.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
2. Reposting this
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 09:25 AM
Mar 2013

"That said, even the White House is predicting that health care costs will rise around 6 - 7% per year for the foreseeable future. Reality is probably some where in between the conservative estimates, and the White House estimate."

...because it illustrates why the predictions are nothing but fear mongering. Sure, more people will be covered and the amount seniors can be charged will be capped much lower, but using these to predict that costs will rise doesn't take into consideration the cost-cutting provisions or the fact that premiums have been rising a lot slower.

Sec. Kathleen Sebelius

Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases

The Affordable Care Act prohibits some of the worst insurance industry practices that have kept affordable health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans. It provides families and individuals with new protections against discriminatory rates due to pre-existing conditions, holds insurance companies accountable for how they spend your premium dollars, and prevents insurance companies from raising your insurance premium rates without accountability or transparency.

For more than a decade before the Affordable Care Act health insurance premiums had risen rapidly, straining the pocketbooks of American families and businesses. Oftentimes, insurance companies were able to raise rates without explanation to consumers or public justification of their actions.



The Affordable Care Act brought an unprecedented level of scrutiny and transparency to health insurance rate increases by requiring insurance companies in every state to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 10% or more. Insurance companies are required to provide easy to understand information to their customers about their reasons for significant rate increases, and any unreasonable rate increases are posted online.

And it's working.

A new report released today shows that the health care law is helping to moderate premium hikes. Since this rule was implemented, the number of requests for insurance premium increases of 10% or more has dropped dramatically, from 75% to 14%. The average premium increase for all rates in 2012 was 30% below what it was in 2010. And available data suggest that this slowdown in rate increases has continued into 2013.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sec-kathleen-sebelius/holding-insurance-compani_b_2742501.html


Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare

by Joan McCarter

The bulk of the most popular stuff of the Affordable Care act hasn't gone into effect yet, but the regulations for it have been finalized, so insurance companies will have plenty of time to get used to the fact that there are going to be real limits on how much they can screw you starting next year.

Those new regulations hit the five key consumer protections:

  • Guaranteed Availability
    Nearly all health insurance companies offering coverage to individuals and employers will be required to sell health insurance policies to all consumers. No one can be denied health insurance because they have or had an illness.

  • Fair Health Insurance Premiums
    Health insurance companies offering coverage to individuals and small employers will only be allowed to vary premiums based on age, tobacco use, family size, and geography. Basing premiums on other factors will be illegal. The factors that are no longer permitted in 2014 include health status, past insurance claims, gender, occupation, how long an individual has held a policy, or size of the small employer.

  • Guaranteed Renewability
    Health insurance companies will no longer refuse to renew coverage because an individual or an employee has become sick. You may renew your coverage at your option.

  • Single Risk Pool
    Health insurance companies will no longer be able to charge higher premiums to higher cost enrollees by moving them into separate risk pools. Insurers are required to maintain a single state-wide risk pool for the individual market and single state-wide risk pool for the small group market.

  • Catastrophic Plans
    Young adults and people for whom coverage would otherwise be unaffordable will have access to a catastrophic plan in the individual market. Catastrophic plans generally will have lower premiums, protect against high out-of-pocket costs, and cover recommended preventive services without cost sharing.
This is the stuff that's going to make Obamacare no longer a dirty word. It's also the stuff that's going to lessen opposition to a larger federal government role in all of our health care, a good starting point to the much larger, systemic reforms that are still going to have to happen to fix health care in America.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/22/1189127/-Rules-finalized-for-the-good-stuff-in-nbsp-Obamacare




zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
8. Sorta their job
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:04 AM
Mar 2013

In the actuaries defense, it's kinda the definition of their job. If one had access to their total analysis, they probably "bounded" the issue with some favorable assumptions to see what the "best case" or "nominal case" was (you can bet the White House did). The fear mongering comes in from the person that decides to publish only the "worst case" analysis. We see that a bit from the Congressional Budget Office. They do analysis that often presumes that various stimulus or other governmental activity won't have large effects. It is a good and conservative analysis to make those kinds of evaluations. However, it is also important to see just how sensitive the analysis to SMALL changes in the assumptions.

The press is terrible at presenting technical, or statistical information. Any serious presentation of these kinds of predictions should contain definitions of accuracy and precision associated with them, as well as SOME sensitivity to major assumptions.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
11. "In the actuaries defense, it's kinda the definition of their job."
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:42 AM
Mar 2013

And it's other people's job to call them out when they're defending the status quo.



zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
13. "They" aren't
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:54 AM
Mar 2013

The people cherry picking their analysis are the ones doing the fear mongering and the status quo defending. To be honest, the data you're posting is cherry picked as well, although I suspect not nearly as harshly.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
15. Maybe
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:10 PM
Mar 2013

"'They' aren't. The people cherry picking their analysis are the ones doing the fear mongering and the status quo defending. To be honest, the data you're posting is cherry picked as well, although I suspect not nearly as harshly."

...not intentionally, but if they aren't looking at the entire law, all the mechanism, then they are making flawed predictions.

Then there is this:

<...>

Another caveat: The Society of Actuaries contracted Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, to do the number-crunching that drives the report. United also owns the nation's largest health insurance company. Bohn said the study reflects the professional conclusions of the society, not Optum or its parent company.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=175375444

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
17. yeah, that's trashy
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:31 PM
Mar 2013

I know what they're saying, but there is a real measure of the fox guarding the hen house here. Of course the White House has a certain interest in positive analysis as well.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. The report
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 10:23 AM
Mar 2013

"My costs haven't been cut. They've increased. That's my bottom line."

...makes predictions about the future. The health care law hasn't been fully implemented. There are provisions that have gone into effect that are helping millions of people, but the full impact will be notice after 2014.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
6. So...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 10:35 AM
Mar 2013

wait another year of bankrupting premiums and deductible, and suddenly, by magic, my premiums will become affordable and my deductible will disappear, so that the premium STAYS affordable.

Okay.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
7. No,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 10:39 AM
Mar 2013

"So...wait another year of bankrupting premiums and deductible, and suddenly, by magic, my premiums will become affordable and my deductible will disappear, so that the premium STAYS affordable. "

...I simply pointed out that the predictions are about the future and the law isn't fully implemented.

You say your premium has gone up, and you imply that it has been going up for years. The point is that those increases have nothing to do with the law, and once it's fully implemented you will likely see some relief.



zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
9. Well, sorta relief
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:14 AM
Mar 2013
"...and once it's fully implemented you will likely see some relief."

What you mean is when it is fully implemented, he may see the rate at which his premiums goes up won't be as fast as without Obamacare.

That's a prediction that is not currently held by everyone, even supporters of Obamacare. The primary purpose of Obamacare was NOT to control health care costs, or even the rate of premium increases. It was to increase access to health INSURANCE (as well as control the rate of increase of medicare/caid for the goverment). There were some aspects that were intended to address costs FOR SOME PEOPLE. But the vast majority of people will probably not experience health care, or health insurance premium savings. They WILL have other features that will prevent them from losing insurance, and that savings is hard to quantify, but shouldn't be overlooked. And a FEW people will starting using features of the "covered @100%" that they formerly paid. But over all, for huge numbers of people in the next 20 years or so, they probably won't experience much savings at all. Those that will are those that would have been charged exorbitant premiums, if they could have gotten/afforded insurance at all. Which really was the point of Obamacare, to get people insured that previously were not for one reason or another. That turns out to be around 7-12% of the population.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
10. OK
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:40 AM
Mar 2013

"What you mean is when it is fully implemented, he may see the rate at which his premiums goes up won't be as fast as without Obamacare...The primary purpose of Obamacare was NOT to control health care costs, or even the rate of premium increases."

...fine, but the purpose was also to control cost, and there are mechanisms in the law to do just that. Otherwise, there would be nothing to slow the growth.

Medicare’s Projected Spending Has Dropped $500 Billion Without Lawmakers Cutting A Dime

By Jeff Spross

Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.

The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:



According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/


"That turns out to be around 7-12% of the population."

You keep posting that range, and I keep pointing out that it's inaccurate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=242519

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
12. But not for everyone
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:52 AM
Mar 2013

It was intended to control costs for certain people, but not for everyone. It was intended to control them for people who previously were denied, or charge very high premiums. It was aimed and controlling costs for government programs such as medicare and medicaid. And it was aimed at controlling costs for other specific groups of people. But it was never intended to control costs for everyone, and even the White House will acknowledge that the costs for some people, not just the rate of increase, will go up.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's going up for some people so it can go down ALOT for others.

And I've actually modified the range to say 7-12% instead of 7-8%. It's dubious we'll ever get to 12%, 10% is probably as good as it will ever get, and probably only for a brief time. But until we actually know (we haven't gotten there yet) the number will be uncertain.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
14. You're
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:01 PM
Mar 2013

"But not for everyone. It was intended to control costs for certain people, but not for everyone. It was intended to control them for people who previously were denied, or charge very high premiums. It was aimed and controlling costs for government programs such as medicare and medicaid. And it was aimed at controlling costs for other specific groups of people. But it was never intended to control costs for everyone, and even the White House will acknowledge that the costs for some people, not just the rate of increase, will go up.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's going up for some people so it can go down ALOT for others."

...making contradictory statements. You previously said, ""What you mean is when it is fully implemented, he may see the rate at which his premiums goes up won't be as fast as without Obamacare."

Now, you're adding the claim that the cost will go up, taking out of context the administration's statement that people who move to better policies may see their premiums go up, but these people are paying higher out-of-pocket costs and deductibles for less coverage.




zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
16. Careful
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:28 PM
Mar 2013

There are many groups of people of which we are speaking. There are those that will see significant savings under Obamacare. This is far from "everyone" and isn't even "most". There are those whose savings are merely "reduced rate of increase". This is probably the largest group (and it strangely includes the US government since that is the case for their costs under Medicare/caid). There are some people, again probably not "most" that will see actual increased costs because of Obamacare. It's not everyone by any stretch, and as I say, probably not even "most". (At least for the next 7 years or so, no one really knows beyond that). Probably the single largest group are those that won't see much difference at all in their overall premium costs due to Obamacare. Costs were going up, always were going up, and will continue to go up.

Anyone who was in any sort of large (very large) "group" plan probably won't see much change at all. That is predominantly because those are typically corporate plans of one sort or another, often "self insured" plans. Those were basically "actual cost" plans to the corporation. So the 80% rules don't apply (don't need to) and there was already incentives to keep costs low. Heck, the different kinds of coverage spelled out were drawn on models from these plans because they were pretty good at controlling costs. Mostly any cost increases due to Obamacare will be to pay for things that have to be covered at 100%, plus some yearly and lifetime cap deletion adjustments. But that is sort of a wash since you pay higher premiums, but lower out of pocket costs.

Obamacare was attempting to control premium costs through greater cost sharing. The young and healthy pay a little more, so that the old and pre-existing can pay alot less.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. Fortunately
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:30 PM
Mar 2013
...Mostly any cost increases due to Obamacare will be to pay for things that have to be covered at 100%, plus some yearly and lifetime cap deletion adjustments. But that is sort of a wash since you pay higher premiums, but lower out of pocket costs.

Obamacare was attempting to control premium costs through greater cost sharing. The young and healthy pay a little more, so that the old and pre-existing can pay alot less.

...cost sharing also included taxing the rich. That's why McConnell, Ryan and Republicans are so dead set against the ACA. It did the unthinkable: raised taxes on the rich.

McConnell has a 'secret' plan for 'Obamacare'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022579129

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
19. The fact is,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:26 PM
Mar 2013

those yearly increases didn't hit double digits until the ACA act passed.

Another fact: your thread title infers that the thread is supposed to be ABOUT cost-cutting.

"The Latest Attack On Obamacare Conveniently Ignores The Law’s Cost-Cutting Provisions"

It's certainly reasonable to point out that my, and many others', costs have not been "cut" by the ACA, and that they've actually increased MORE than they were increasing previously. Unless "some relief" will put our costs back to where they were before, which is unlikely and still not "affordable," that "relief" is a hypocritical fabrication.

True relief would be ensuring that health CARE, not for-profit insurance, was TRULY affordable for all people.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. So
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:32 PM
Mar 2013

"The fact is, those yearly increases didn't hit double digits until the ACA act passed."

...you're blaming the health insurance companies being assholes on the law being passed?

It's certainly reasonable to point out that my, and many others', costs have not been "cut" by the ACA, and that they've actually increased MORE than they were increasing previously. Unless "some relief" will put our costs back to where they were before, which is unlikely and still not "affordable," that "relief" is a hypocritical fabrication.

Well, maybe you should join the repeal it crowd. I mean, the law isn't implemented, and it has helped millions of people.

Also, out of pocket costs are capped as a percentage of income. Insurance companies have had to return hundreds of millions to individuals. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002613579

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
21. I'll just sit here waiting for some of that money to come back to me.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:41 PM
Mar 2013


We knew the insurance companies were assholes before the law was passed. Which is why passing a law that allows them to get away with it is impotent.

More to the point, it didn't cut costs for so many of us; isn't that what this thread is about?

How many people didn't get the care they needed because, after bankrupting themselves on the premium, the deductible is too large and there's nothing left to pay it with? How does having that kind of insurance cut anyone's costs, or give them better access to care?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
22. The law
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:50 PM
Mar 2013

"We knew the insurance companies were assholes before the law was passed. Which is why passing a law that allows them to get away with it is impotent."

... didn't allow them to "get away" with anything. They decided to amp up their assholery as part of their campaign to get the law repealed.

"More to the point, it didn't cut costs for so many of us; isn't that what this thread is about? "

Again, the law hasn't been fully implemented.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
23. But your thread is supposedly about cost-cutting.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:55 PM
Mar 2013

Which hasn't happened; for so many, costs have gone UP.

Are you now trying to say that cost cutting "hasn't been fully implemented," or are you going to try to claim that scaling back some of the massive INCREASES, if it is EVER implemented, are "cost-CUTS?"

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
24. No,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:15 PM
Mar 2013

"But your thread is supposedly about cost-cutting. Which hasn't happened; for so many, costs have gone UP."

...the OP is about a report predicting cost will go up dramatically after the law is implemented.

You are conflating issues.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
27. I clearly don't understand what you are saying
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 06:54 PM
Mar 2013

about "cost-cutting provisions," it's true. Or are you just defending any criticism of the ACA, and threw the phrase "cost-cutting provisions" into the thread title for some other reason than to discuss the supposed "cost-cutting provisions?"

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
28. Suggestion,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 06:56 PM
Mar 2013

read the OP again. Start here:

"On Tuesday, the Associated Press (AP) published an article recounting a Society of Actuaries (SOA) study that finds health insurance premiums “will jump..."

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
29. I did read that.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:15 PM
Mar 2013

I'm just trying to connect it to the thread title, which is supposed to tell me what the thread is about.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Latest Attack On Obam...