  |
 |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
#1
04-23-2010, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Health care will cover more, cost more
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up. Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable,  the report warned.It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats. (More medicare cuts?! So are we trading our senior's care for this?) In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors. The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings. The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade. "During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates. Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system. "A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors. In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions. "The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said. Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health. The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes. The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion. Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period. The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare. In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs. In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency. 
|
|
#2
04-23-2010, 01:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The more I hear about the bill the more shocked I am.
And some people still believe that they are getting free healthcare. This is a bill to require you to BUY health insurance just like the law to requires you to have car insurance. It is only free if you don't have a job and can't get one. If you have a job and don't buy health insurance then you get fined. If you don't pay the fine then the IRS (the new 17,000 employees they are hiring) will place a lien on and seize any property that you have. How do the people who said that someone shouldn't lose their home over medical bills reconcile this? Oh, maybe it is okay that they should lose it because they can't buy health insurance? I just don't get it.
|
|
#4
04-23-2010, 03:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've tried to explain this kind of thing to people in life and they just don't get it. We are going to bankrupt hospitals and long term care facilities. We are going to make it harder for people to pay their regular bills because they have to pay for insurance they may not even need and certainly don't want (NateR comes to mind as a single, healthy, younger man who doesn't need constant doctor visits).
~Amy
|
|
#5
04-23-2010, 05:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's even worse than I thought. I guess on the positive side, there is some time to repeal this horrible bill. Once the changes are made it would be very difficult to do that so I'm praying that there is a big shakeup in Nov. and the pols follow through on their promises to put a stake in the heart of this bill.
On a related topic, our homeowner/auto ins. co. (that serves mainly military folks, I don't want to give the name on a public forum) sent us an email asking us to contact our senators regarding legislation that is under consideration as we speak. If passed, the companies financial arm would be impacted by govt. control and regulations unheard of in their 87 year history, which would in turn have a negative effect on us as customers. In our 38 years as members we've never been asked to contact our representatives so I know it is a dire situation and this is one of the best companies I've ever dealt with. I'm outraged at this administration's effort to regulate private sector and lump all financial institutions together (except for the big contributors, apparently). I hope our senators are listening.
|
|
#6
04-23-2010, 06:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
  And I will go on record to say that I LOVE them. ~Amy
|
|
#8
04-23-2010, 07:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
~Amy
|
|
#9
04-23-2010, 10:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
38 years!
 Yes, it's always nice to get those checks, even if they're small they come in handy (and we always get ours shortly before Christmas). We also use their other services, we even booked a Caribbean cruise with them in '96 (it was wonderful).
|
|
#10
04-23-2010, 10:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
~Amy
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
