Why we cannot trust the CBO on healthcare costs:

[hislegacy]

According to...?

If I need more than three, then I certainly need more than two words to formulate a reply.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I need more than three, then I certainly need more than two words to formulate a reply.

And yet, here you've used eighteen words, and still failed to formulate a reply.

I can't think of a better object lesson on the value of quality over quantity.

 

[dgiharris]

I agree with your for profit take on the insurance side, as i have dealt with payors and the games they play for decades. On the actual health care provider side, for profit providers tend to fair quite well, when it comes to quality and being efficiant. The big non profits, tend to be cumbersome, top heavy with management and some of those CEOs are making millions a year. Also, non profit in healthcare is misleading. Non profits want to make a profit and take in more money than they spend, they just have to put the money back into the organization. This is why the large non profit hospitals, are erecting new facilities every five minutes. .

True, big non profits are cumbersome and top heavy and have a lot of "administration" costs... but they are still better than for profit health care orgs in terms of cost.

I think as a nation, we need 100% cost transparency with the entire health care industry-- every nook and cranny.

Again, I'm not opposed to things costing what they cost and professionals getting paid for what their degrees and hard work entitle them too.

With the pharma companies, there are few complete cures of disease in healthcare in general. What you most often see, is disease being managed or controlled.

One of the corner stones of GOP economic arguments and theories is "incentive". You often hear arguments about how if you incentivize the people with a big stick or a carrot how that will magically fix whatever problem is being argued.

Well, if you look at Pharma companies, their incentives are "profit" and so it is no wonder why you see very few actual cures.

I know it seems asinine for me to claim to know what is happening in the board rooms of these big companies but I do. They are all slaves to their next quarter earnings projections and stock value. They can't help but think of the public as cash cows.

We need to completely overhaul and change our health care model from start to finish.

Otherwise, a hundred years will pass by, and we'll still be popping pills for treatments instead of having actual cures (along with all the other trappings of our current system which makes healthcare ridiculously expensive)...

 

[bhsmte]

True, big non profits are cumbersome and top heavy and have a lot of "administration" costs... but they are still better than for profit health care orgs in terms of cost.

I think as a nation, we need 100% cost transparency with the entire health care industry-- every nook and cranny.

Again, I'm not opposed to things costing what they cost and professionals getting paid for what their degrees and hard work entitle them too.



One of the corner stones of GOP economic arguments and theories is "incentive". You often hear arguments about how if you incentivize the people with a big stick or a carrot how that will magically fix whatever problem is being argued.

Well, if you look at Pharma companies, their incentives are "profit" and so it is no wonder why you see very few actual cures.

I know it seems asinine for me to claim to know what is happening in the board rooms of these big companies but I do. They are all slaves to their next quarter earnings projections and stock value. They can't help but think of the public as cash cows.

We need to completely overhaul and change our health care model from start to finish.

Otherwise, a hundred years will pass by, and we'll still be popping pills for treatments instead of having actual cures (along with all the other trappings of our current system which makes healthcare ridiculously expensive)...

I have been in healthcare on the provider side for over 20 years at the executive level with for profit providers. I have been involved in joint ventures with non for profits in the companies I have worked for, so I have seen both sides. I can tell you with little exception, for profit providers deliver care, at lower costs, are more efficient and provide as good if not better outcomes.

In regards to pharma, you see very few cures in healthcare because of the nature of disease, not because it is more profitable than having magic pills that cure. Talk to a doctor about the major diseases that impact many; heart disease, diabetes, dementia, etc.. Good luck finding a magic pill, that changes the entire physiology and DNA of a person. Pharma can't do that, nothing can, which is why these diseases are controlled, not cured.

 

[hislegacy]

And yet, here you've used eighteen words, and still failed to formulate a reply.

I can't think of a better object lesson on the value of quality over quantity.

Thank you again, I am really humbled by all this personal attention. But in reality this thread is not about me, nor my posting style. To think you care enough to attempt to correct what you perceive as flaws in me personally while completely ignoring the topic of the thread and every other poster in the thread is a wonderful compliment.

However, my ability or inablility to answer a post in a manner or style you approve of is really not the topic of this thread and has absolutely nothing to do with the CBO office.

If you care to address that topic instead of me personally, I would love to converse with you. I hope you are well and experiencing the Grace of God.

Warmest Regards
Hislegacy
Joe

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you again, I am really humbled by all this personal attention. But in reality this thread is not about me, nor my posting style. To think you care enough to attempt to correct what you perceive as flaws in me personally while completely ignoring the topic of the thread and every other poster in the thread is a wonderful compliment.

However, my ability or inablility to answer a post in a manner or style you approve of is really not the topic of this thread and has absolutely nothing to do with the CBO office.

If you care to address that topic instead of me personally, I would love to converse with you. I hope you are well and experiencing the Grace of God.

Warmest Regards
Hislegacy
Joe

129 words, and you failed to answer my question... again.

 

[hislegacy]

Marco Rubio happened.

need more than three words to formulate a reply.

According to...?

Me, I am the one who said it. I thought that was self evident.

There you go, your question is answered. Hope that helps you.

Kind Regards,
Hislegacy
Joe

 

[hislegacy]

From the "Like I was saying file"

The reason: The CBO’s methodology, which favors mandates over choice and competition, is fundamentally flawed. As a result, its past predictions regarding health-care legislation have not borne much resemblance to reality. Its prediction about the Senate bill is unlikely to fare much better.
When Obamacare passed in 2010, the CBO projected a healthy individual market with 23 million people enrolled in exchange plans by this year. The CBO predicted that by 2017, exchange plans would be profitable and annual premium increases low.
The CBO reached these conclusions, in large part, because its model puts significant weight on the individual mandate. The CBO expected millions of relatively young and healthy people to buy exchange plans under government coercion.
But this never happened. Today, there are only 10 million people enrolled in exchange plans — about 60 percent fewer than expected. (Contrary to some claims, this is not because more people have maintained employer plans than the CBO expected; the reduction in employer coverage has been greater than the CBO projected, and overall about 9 million more people are uninsured now than projected.) Absent the projected bounty of young, healthy consumers, health insurers are abandoning the exchanges, leaving a third of American counties with only one insurer to choose from. As insurers continue to flee the exchanges, consumers will face even fewer options next year.
And while choice is declining, costs are skyrocketing. A recent analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services found that the average annual premium on the individual market has more than doubled since 2013 — up nearly $3,000 in only four years. Premiums seem set to increase at least 25 percent next year as well. These hikes, along with the large drop in insurer participation, show that many state exchanges are descending deeper into adverse-selection spirals.

The CBO failed to foresee any of this. Despite the obvious shortcomings of its previous analyses, the CBO has utterly failed to update its model to account for reality. Instead, the CBO continues to attribute mythical power to the individual mandate.

Opinion | The fundamental error in the CBO’s health-care projections

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Today, there are only 10 million people enrolled in exchange plans — about 60 percent fewer than expected. (Contrary to some claims, this is not because more people have maintained employer plans than the CBO expected; the reduction in employer coverage has been greater than the CBO projected, and overall about 9 million more people are uninsured now than projected.)

Got a source for this claim? Because, as I understand, the CBO predicted 30 million uninsured in 2017, and the actual figure is 27 million.

 

[hislegacy]

Check the link.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Check the link.

Their source says nothing about the number of uninsured. The nine million number appears to be pulled from a hat. Can you point me to a source for that?

And again, I'll point out that criticism of the CBO's Obamacare assessment is irrelevant. They have a new, conservative director (selected by the Republican-majority Congress) who was critical of Obamacare and use a different model to calculate budget impacts that is favored by Republicans.

 

[Vylo]

The CBO, in my opinion, needs to seriously look at their methodology

It is more that people have to seriously look at the CBO's predictions.

If they say "Y will happen if X is in place" and then X isn't in place, that will throw off the projections.

So if they say "obamacare will be stable if everyone does medicaid expansion", and some states don't guess what happens?