The Money People Will Save From ACA Will That Be A Stimulant.....

[global1]

to the economy?

I'm thinking those people that are saving money on more affordable healthcare now will spend their newfound money on things they've been depriving themselves of because they had to use that money on expensive health insurance.

Will it be enough to have an impact on the economy?

Was this part of President Obama's plan.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Can you imagine the relief that small businesses and other employers will enjoy?

You bet your ass this will boost the economy.

I love it.

[DesMoinesDem]

2. The ACA doesn't actually reduce the cost of healthcare.

Healthcare costs are still going up. The money some people save are offset my higher costs for others and new taxes.

[NoOneMan]

4. Subsidies will shift cost burden

[DesMoinesDem]

11. Yep.

[backscatter712]

26. To those who are wealthier, and have the ability to pay.

The ACA saves costs for those who are 1. sick, and 2. poor.

It's those with higher incomes, that don't have to deal with pre-existing conditions & such that are getting asked to pay more.

And should.

I know, that makes me a dirty commie hippie.

[geek tragedy]

9. Math is hard.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/aca-slows-growth-health-costs

Health care spending since the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act has risen by 1.3% a year, the lowest rate ever recorded, and health care inflation is the lowest it has been in 50 years, a report released Wednesday by the White House shows.

An economy hobbled by the recession and 2008 economic crisis played a role in some of the reduced spending growth, officials said, but the report cited “structural change” caused, in part, by the law.

[DesMoinesDem]

10. OK, so math is hard for you. You also seem to have trouble with the English language.

Unless your post was supposed to prove my point. I said the ACA doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare and you quote some article saying how much the cost of healthcare has RISEN.

[geek tragedy]

12. By your peculiar 'logic' Chained CPI wouldn't be a benefit cut.

The amount of the monthly benefit payment would RISE, ergo Chained CPI cannot be said to cut benefits.

Just in case you're really not smart enough to grasp it instead of engaging in Libertarian-style trolling:

The three years post-dating the ACA's enactment have seen the LOWEST increase in healthcare costs since they started measuring those costs.

That means that the ACA is lowering costs to a significant degree, to the point it's counteracting other forces that have been causing healthcare costs to rise precipitously.

[DesMoinesDem]

13. Jeez, you really do have trouble with the english language.

You admit the healthcare costs are still INCREASING, but claim that I am wrong when I said ACA doesn't reduce (i.e. lower than current amount) the cost of healthcare.

By your peculiar 'logic' you think someone can claim they reduced their weight by only gaining 5 pounds last month instead of 10. In reality they reduced the increase of their weight, but they didn't reduce their weight. Words have meanings and you should learn them. Get a dictionary my friend and read it.

[quaker bill]

16. His point is correct

following your logic, chained CPI would be an increase in SSI benefits, because the monthly benefit checks will still get larger each year, just a smaller amount larger.

You can do the math two different ways and either way is fine, when used consistently.

[geek tragedy]

20. Exercise reduces weight. But, if you eat 5000 calories a day you're still going to gain weight.

Just like spending money reduces your bank account, but if you earn enough your bank account goes up.

It's apparent you understand English, and that you understand math at at least a second grade level.

Here,let me increase your understanding of math:

The test of whether the ACA reduces costs is not whether costs go up or down. The test is whether costs would be higher, lower, or the same but for the enactment of the ACA. And the math here clearly demonstrates that costs would have been higher had the ACA not been enacted.

[DesMoinesDem]

22. I can't explain it any simplier.

You education level is obviously not enough for you to understand. Current health care costs are still rising. They are not less than they were before. That was the point I made, and it is a fact. The word reduce obviously confuses the hell out of you.

[geek tragedy]

23. You argued that the ACA merely redistributes costs rather than having any negative

effect on them.

That is an indication of either (a) dishonesty or (b) innumeracy.

Here's a helpful hint: when they talk about the AC "bending the cost curve" that means it's reducing costs.

Just ask noted rightwinger, Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131129&_r=1&

So, how’s it going? The health exchanges are off to a famously rocky start, but many, though by no means all, of the cost-control measures have already kicked in. Has the curve been bent?

The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.
...

So what aspects of Obamacare might be causing health costs to slow? One clear answer is the act’s reduction in Medicare “overpayments” — mainly a reduction in the subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans, but also cuts in some provider payments. A less certain but likely source of savings involves changes in the way Medicare pays for services. The program now penalizes hospitals if many of their patients end up being readmitted soon after being released — an indicator of poor care — and readmission rates have, in fact, fallen substantially. Medicare is also encouraging a shift from fee-for-service, in which doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure, to “accountable care,” in which health organizations get rewarded for overall success in improving care while controlling costs.

Furthermore, there’s evidence that Medicare savings “spill over” to the rest of the health care system — that when Medicare manages to slow cost growth, private insurance gets cheaper, too.

And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides) if Medicare spending grows above target, hasn’t yet been established, in part because of the near-certainty that any appointments to the board would be filibustered by Republicans yelling about “death panels.” Now that the filibuster has been reformed, the board can come into being.

The news on health costs is, in short, remarkably good. You won’t hear much about this good news until and unless the Obamacare website gets fixed. But under the surface, health reform is starting to look like a bigger success than even its most ardent advocates expected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/opinion/krugman-the-wonk-gap.html

My guess, in other words, was that Mr. Barrasso was inadvertently illustrating the widening “wonk gap” — the G.O.P.’s near-complete lack of expertise on anything substantive. Health care is the most prominent example, but the dumbing down extends across the spectrum, from budget issues to national security to poll analysis. Remember, Mitt Romney and much of his party went into Election Day expecting victory.

About health reform: Mr. Barrasso was wrong about everything, even the “unpopular” bit, as I’ll explain in a minute. Mainly, however, he was completely missing the story on affordability.

For the truth is that the good news on costs just keeps coming in. There has been a striking slowdown in overall health costs since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, with many experts giving the law at least partial credit. And we now have a good idea what insurance premiums will be once the law goes fully into effect; a comprehensive survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that on average premiums will be significantly lower than those predicted by the Congressional Budget Office when the law was passed.

[DesMoinesDem]

24. No, I said ACA didn't reduce the cost of healthcare.

That is the costs of healthcare are not less than they were before. And that is a fact, and you have proven for me over and over. It is an indisputable fact. Period. End of story. Why is this so hard for you to get. Logic obviously isn't your strong-point.

[geek tragedy]

25. Here's what you said.

The money some people save are offset my higher costs for others and new taxes

You're making the Republican argument that the ACA isn't doing anything to contain costs, just redistributes them.

Which is demonstrably false.

Your entire argument--that "bending the cost curve" and "containing costs" doesn't mean "reducing costs"--is sophomoric and devoid of any pretense regarding the substance of the discussion.

It's the equivalent to those who say that Chained CPI wouldn't be a benefits cut.

[DesMoinesDem]

27. Wow, you finally moved on from the first sentence!

Glad you gave up on that. You were wrong, and I was right. Sorry, but I don't have time to make 5 posts explaining every other sentence to you. Please look into continuing eduction. And good luck with your unquestioning defense of anything related to Obama. I hope you are getting paid for it. NSA rules!

[geek tragedy]

30. No, you were wrong on substance. Dishonestly so to the point where you lied and said

that any money anyone saved because of the ACA would be imposed on other people through higher premiums and taxes.

The truth is that the ACA does exert downward pressure on healthcare costs. It contains costs. It bends the cost curve. Costs are lower than they would have been had it not been enacted.

That is not redistribution. That is cost savings. It will reduce the deficit by $100 Billion per year over the long term, taking trillions off the national debt.

Too bad you choose to stand with Rand instead of with the math.

[DesMoinesDem]

31. Nope, you are wrong. So sorry you don't understand semantics.

I'll leave you go go defend the NSA. Too bad you choose to stand with Ari Fleischer and Dick Cheney instead of real liberals.

[geek tragedy]

32. Pretty eager to change the subject. Yes or no:

Would passing Chained CPI be a reduction in Social Security recipients?

[DesMoinesDem]

33. LOL. I'm eager to change the subject??? You're talking about Chained CPI on a discussion about ACA

Chained CPI was never the subject. NEVER! The OP doesn't mention Chained CPI. I didn't mention Chained CPI. Only YOU have mentioned Chained CPI in an attempt to change the subject, and now you're crying because it didn't work.

[geek tragedy]

34. I have my answer: you think Chained CPI is NOT a reduction in benefits. nt

[DesMoinesDem]

35. I have an answer: you are desperate to change the subject.

[geek tragedy]

36. No, I'm applying your peculiar logic to another issue to see if you really believe

this crap you're spewing.

If you deny that the ACA is reducing health care costs, you must also deny that Chained CPI would reduce the payments paid to Social Security recipients.

You can't honestly deny one without denying the other.

[DesMoinesDem]

37. Nope, your trying to change the subject.

Why don't you go back to defending everything the NSA does.

[geek tragedy]

38. I think your sophistry and agenda has been pretty well revealed here.

You: ACA redistributes costs, doesn't do anything to lower or reduce them

Me: the math

Fascinating how you kvetch about subject changing and then bang on your and Rand Pauls' favorite talking point.

[DesMoinesDem]

39. Whatever you say. Now go back to regurgitating Cheney, Fleischer, and Rove's NSA talking points.

[TheKentuckian]

14. As a stimulus? I dunno about that argument in the near term.

I also think the argument fails on its own terms. It isn't apples to apples even though the topic is inflation because individual income and systemic costs aren't the same thing.

Folks can't spend savings to Medicare nor can one glean savings from a reduction in a specific segment when the segment has multiple the rate of normal inflation. That is why "bending the curve" is universally seen as critical, health care costs are choking the economy and a big chunk of the current dollars are being sucked from elsewhere.

There may be a thought here but it isn't really operative here unless medical inflation dips below regular inflation so more actual buying power is generated rather than systemically reducing it due to cancerous growth levels.

[geek tragedy]

21. I agree with you. I'm not certain that the economic benefits of the ACA are

stimulative but more like triage.

[Keefer]

15. The ACA doesn't reduce healthcare costs because

the ACA isn't health care. It's health insurance.

[backscatter712]

28. There's also a lot of under-the-hood reforms that already are reducing costs...

Like the cap on the medical loss ratio, means that more of our insurance premiums are going to pay for medical care, and less for the CEO's 600 foot yacht.

Or the restructuring of Medicare payments from pay-per-procedure to pay-per-patient, meaning that there's less incentive for sleazy hospitals to run up the bill with zillions of expensive tests, and that hospitals will be more motivated to treat you correctly the first time so they don't have to pay for a re-admission.

Don't believe me? Believe the Nobel-prize winning economist...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131129&_r=1&

Obamacare’s Secret Success
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 28, 2013 760 Comments

Much of the Beltway establishment scoffed at the promise of cost savings. The prevalent attitude in Washington is that reform isn’t real unless the little people suffer; serious savings are supposed to come from things like raising the Medicare age (which the Congressional Budget Office recently concluded would, in fact, hardly save any money) and throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. True, a 2011 letter signed by hundreds of health and labor economists pointed out that “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending.” But such expert views were largely ignored.

So, how’s it going? The health exchanges are off to a famously rocky start, but many, though by no means all, of the cost-control measures have already kicked in. Has the curve been bent?

The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.

O.K., the obligatory caveats. First of all, we don’t know how long the good news will last. Health costs in the United States slowed dramatically in the 1990s (although not this dramatically), probably thanks to the rise of health maintenance organizations, but cost growth picked up again after 2000. Second, we don’t know for sure how much of the good news is because of the Affordable Care Act.

[global1]

29. If You Read My Inquiry Carefully In My OP - I'm Not Talking About Healthcare Costs ....

and the slowing of the rate of increase of healthcare in this country. I thought I was clear that I'm talking about an individual that was previously paying (for example) $500.00 a month for health insurance and because of ACA found a new plan that will decrease that monthly outlay of cash to (let's say for example) by half or $250.00 a month for the new plan.

They now have $250.00 more a month of extra cash that they don't need to use for health insurance. Multiply that by the millions of people that could be saving that much or more because of ACA - that to me means a lot more disposable income that people now have that they can spend for items that they may have been depriving themselves of because of the cost of their health insurance.

Will that newfound money be a stimulant to the economy?

I was thinking that it would be and that this was one of the reasons that the Repugs were trying to sandbag ACA. If the economy is stimulated - even in a small way - wouldn't that be a feather in the President's hat that the Repugs don't want to acknowledge?

That is where I was going with my OP as opposed to talking about healthcare costs on the macro level.

[NoOneMan]

3. Increasing disposable income, no strings attached, is rather a weaker form of stimulus

For example, remember the great Bush tax rebate? It went to online porn and paying down debt. Minimal multiplier compared to food stamps and other types of goods/service vouchers

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. i hope so!

[Lifelong Dem]

6. Trickle up instead of trickling down on someone

[bhikkhu]

7. The idea was to fix, finally, the US healthcare system

which has been a big drag on the economy for years:

?w=500&h=299

[Laelth]

18. Proves that the NHS rocks. n/t

-Laelth

[subterranean]

8. A lot of them (myself included) were paying nothing before

because we had no health insurance. I'm sure that some people who already had insurance will be spending less because of the ACA, but others will be paying a bit more. I doubt it will have a significant impact on the economy overall.

However, if the ACA helps to reduce the number of medical bankruptcies and unpaid hospital bills, that can only be a good thing.

[Cha]

17. Of course, global.. another reason for republicons to

hate it within an inch of their lives.

[WinkyDink]

19. Like for food and rent?

[Orsino]

40. Yes.

On the whole, I expect some sort of stimulative effect on the economy, with those helped most also most ready to get out and spend.