Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Obamacare to Cost $2.6 Billion LESS then Estimates
Topic Started: Jun 21 2016, 07:19 AM (531 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
CNBC
 
US could spend $2.6 Trillion less on Health than original Obamacare Estimates

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

The United States is on track to spend $2.6 trillion less on health care over a five-year period than was originally projected after the passage of Obamacare, a new Urban Institute study released Monday said.

The report also said there is evidence that the growth in health spending has again slowed after it spiked in 2014.

It remains an open question whether Obamacare itself is responsible for the slowdown in estimated spending from 2014-19, which represents an 11 percent drop in spending estimates, or whether the overall sluggish economy should get the credit.

The Urban Institute report said that if the savings end up being due to Obamacare, "then slower growth [in national health spending] may persist beyond current projections."

"But if the economy was the primary driver of slower growth, then we should expect a return to faster growth with a robust recovery," according to the report, which relies on data from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law, federal health regulators estimated that national health spending would top $4.614 trillion by 2019, the report noted.

But now that year is expected to see just $4.02 trillion in health spending — a difference of more than $600 billion, according to the report.

And from 2014 through 2019, the cumulative difference between what is now expected will be $2.6 trillion lower than what was originally projected in 2010 for the same time period, according to the Urban Institute.

The report broke down the factors that are contributing to that dramatic slowdown.

Spending on Medicaid — the joint federal-state health program for the poor — will be $1.05 trillion lower than originally projected during the time span, a 23 percent difference.

"This was partly due to the Supreme Court decision in 2012 that made ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states and significantly reduced enrollment projections," the report said.

Spending on Medicare, the federal health coverage program for the elderly, is expected to be $455 billion less than the 2010 projections.

"One reason is the Budget Control Act of 2011 (i.e., sequestration), which required Medicare payments for all types of services to be reduced 2 percent beginning in April 2013; another reason is the slower than expected spending growth between 2010 and 2014," the report said.

And spending on private health insurance is now projected to be $664 billion less during the time span than original estimates, according to the report.

"Much of this decline was driven by slower spending growth between 2010 and 2014 than had been expected in 2010," the study said. "Contributors to slower growth likely included the sluggish economic recovery as well as lower-than-expected prescription drug spending because of patent expirations and increases in generic drug prescribing," the report said.

"Another likely contributor was a substantial shift toward higher deductibles and cost sharing in private plans, some of which may have been adopted in anticipation of the ACA excise tax on high-cost plans."

Katherine Hempstead, who directs work on health insurance coverage for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said, "If this health spending growth slowdown continues, spending will be trillions less before the end of the decade."
Link
Edited by Brewster, Jun 21 2016, 07:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 21 2016, 07:19 AM
CNBC
 
US could spend $2.6 Trillion less on Health than original Obamacare Estimates

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

The United States is on track to spend $2.6 trillion less on health care over a five-year period than was originally projected after the passage of Obamacare, a new Urban Institute study released Monday said.

The report also said there is evidence that the growth in health spending has again slowed after it spiked in 2014.

It remains an open question whether Obamacare itself is responsible for the slowdown in estimated spending from 2014-19, which represents an 11 percent drop in spending estimates, or whether the overall sluggish economy should get the credit.

The Urban Institute report said that if the savings end up being due to Obamacare, "then slower growth [in national health spending] may persist beyond current projections."

"But if the economy was the primary driver of slower growth, then we should expect a return to faster growth with a robust recovery," according to the report, which relies on data from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law, federal health regulators estimated that national health spending would top $4.614 trillion by 2019, the report noted.

But now that year is expected to see just $4.02 trillion in health spending — a difference of more than $600 billion, according to the report.

And from 2014 through 2019, the cumulative difference between what is now expected will be $2.6 trillion lower than what was originally projected in 2010 for the same time period, according to the Urban Institute.

The report broke down the factors that are contributing to that dramatic slowdown.

Spending on Medicaid — the joint federal-state health program for the poor — will be $1.05 trillion lower than originally projected during the time span, a 23 percent difference.

"This was partly due to the Supreme Court decision in 2012 that made ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states and significantly reduced enrollment projections," the report said.

Spending on Medicare, the federal health coverage program for the elderly, is expected to be $455 billion less than the 2010 projections.

"One reason is the Budget Control Act of 2011 (i.e., sequestration), which required Medicare payments for all types of services to be reduced 2 percent beginning in April 2013; another reason is the slower than expected spending growth between 2010 and 2014," the report said.

And spending on private health insurance is now projected to be $664 billion less during the time span than original estimates, according to the report.

"Much of this decline was driven by slower spending growth between 2010 and 2014 than had been expected in 2010," the study said. "Contributors to slower growth likely included the sluggish economic recovery as well as lower-than-expected prescription drug spending because of patent expirations and increases in generic drug prescribing," the report said.

"Another likely contributor was a substantial shift toward higher deductibles and cost sharing in private plans, some of which may have been adopted in anticipation of the ACA excise tax on high-cost plans."

Katherine Hempstead, who directs work on health insurance coverage for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said, "If this health spending growth slowdown continues, spending will be trillions less before the end of the decade."
Link

Posted Image
Americans know the truth. They are still waiting for the $2,500 in premium reductions for healthcare insurance. and keeping the same doctor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
So you'd rather believe some RWEC site telling a horror story about one case than the entire CNBC Business network.

Maybe your Hero Sessions can explain it to you:

Posted Image

Gullibility has reached epidemic levels on the US Right...

On Edit: Do keep in mind, I'm no fan of Obamacare. I know a far better solution.
Edited by Brewster, Jun 21 2016, 07:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
No, i would rather you and your source tell the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

Brew's source:

The Urban Institute

Political stance

The Urban Institute has been referred to as "independent" and as "liberal." A 2005 study of media bias in The Quarterly Journal of Economics ranked UI as the 11th most liberal of the 50 most-cited think tanks and policy groups, placing it between the NAACP and the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals.[14] According to a study by U.S. News & World Report most political campaign donations by Urban Institute employees go to Democratic politicians. Between 2003 and 2010, Urban Institute employees' made $79,529 in political contributions, of which 0.00% went to the Republican Party



And Brew suggests that Pat gets his info from RWEC sources. Even though Brew has decided that there are no LWECs, according to the Wiki description, The Urban Institute is exactly that. :teeth:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

One other little tidbit:

Brew titled the thread, " Obamacare to Cost $2.6 Billion LESS then Estimates/"

The title of the actual article is, "US could spend $2.6 Trillion less.


Could! It could also cost $2.6 billion more.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brew is trying to polish a turd, it still stinks. Obicare is hurting lots of people with high premiums and large deductibles. Obi lied to the folks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Jun 21 2016, 07:48 AM
No, i would rather you and your source tell the truth.
I did, and it got the usual reaction from the Right.

I wonder how the US Right developed this allergy to the truth.. Does it come from receiving, then rejecting, small doses at a time?
Edited by Brewster, Jun 21 2016, 10:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]

When did you start telling the truth. You didn't even title this thread with the truth.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brew has put up phony pics of Trump, phony climate change charts and phony articles about many issues. He is a liar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis