Obamacare cost...

[All-American]

Wait- you think that law is just now affecting Medicare positively after Medicare spending doubled in the years after it passed??? And now that law is causing spending to decline? You may be alone there. Frankly, you and other conservatives have been saying for a while that Medicare will bankrupt us if not fixed. That is an odd position to take if you think the fix was already implemented in 2003.

Medicare needs to be fixed. The 2003 bill introduced many necessary but not sufficient changes. Notwithstanding progress made by the 2003 bill or the 2009 bill, Medicare remains the single largest fiscal challenge this country faces. As for your other contentions, please see the article I posted in post 305. Here is a relevant segment:

The other big driver of slower U.S. health spending is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which has come in 40 percent under budget, and is the largest component in the Congressional Budget Office’s downward revision in Medicare spending.

Of course, the Medicare drug benefit increased Medicare’s growth in its early years. But since then, the competitive, market-based system designed by the Bush administration was able to take advantage of generic drugs in a way that the old-style single-payer system did not. Today, over 80 percent of all prescriptions in the United States are for inexpensive generic drugs.

It’s kind of ironic. While the Obama administration would like to take credit for the health spending slowdown, it’s two events that took place during the presidency of his predecessor—George W. Bush—that are more likely responsible. The first is the Great Recession, which President Obama has not been able to rectify. The second is the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which legalized health savings accounts and drove more efficient use of generic pharmaceuticals.

Medicare spending is now slowing significantly. Why? Per beneficiary Medicare grew by just 0.4% in 2012.

Again, see the article quoted above.

Fair enough. Although the idea it is "clear"" appears to be solely yours.

And I'm comfortable representing it as clear.

Fair enough. I could have been clearer.

We haven't spent a trillion. Not even close. You are looking at what we are projected to spend over 10 years. And you are neglecting to note the spending is offset.

You can imagine why the "offsets" don't comfort me much, particularly where half of the "offset" is simply a tax.

[myboynoah]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782

Don't worry, we can just pass a law making those companies hire more people.

[calicoug]

Medicare needs to be fixed. The 2003 bill introduced many necessary but not sufficient changes. Notwithstanding progress made by the 2003 bill or the 2009 bill, Medicare remains the single largest fiscal challenge this country faces. As for your other contentions, please see the article I posted in post 305. Here is a relevant segment:

You really rely heavily on one guy from Forbes for your opinion. It is amusing to see the hoops he jumps through to conclude the savings are almost all from Medicare Part D and almost all due to changes Bush implemented. Do you know where he gets the 40% savings amount from? The Trustees report. The CBO thinks Part D savings are actually closer to 28%, but he went with the more optimistic reading from the Trustees. And yet, somehow he missed the fact that the Trustees in their report specifically note that Obamacare is one of the primary reasons for the overall Medicare savings. They further note that the savings in Part D are due in large part to a greater than normal number of drugs coming off patent in 2012 and low subscription rates among the elderly. In other words, they aren't much impressed by the Part D savings but in Parts A and B they find significant slowing of growth and attribute much of that to Obamacare. Your guy liked the report enough to use their figure but not enough to then tell you why they thought there were savings. Believe it or not, you don't have to rely on him to do your work or you.

You can imagine why the "offsets" don't comfort me much, particularly where half of the "offset" is simply a tax.

Not really, but I can imagine you are surprised to learn we haven't actually spent a trillion dollars yet.

[byu71]

When people finally actually see the tax charge they are going to get hit with on paper and they have to pay it, how many of them do you think will be surprised. I would say at least 60%.

[Topper]

When people finally actually see the tax charge they are going to get hit with on paper and they have to pay it, how many of them do you think will be surprised. I would say at least 60%.

Which charge? The penalty for non-compliance? The 3.8 percent on net investment income? Or on the sale of homes?

[All-American]

You really rely heavily on one guy from Forbes for your opinion. It is amusing to see the hoops he jumps through to conclude the savings are almost all from Medicare Part D and almost all due to changes Bush implemented. Do you know where he gets the 40% savings amount from? The Trustees report. The CBO thinks Part D savings are actually closer to 28%, but he went with the more optimistic reading from the Trustees. And yet, somehow he missed the fact that the Trustees in their report specifically note that Obamacare is one of the primary reasons for the overall Medicare savings. They further note that the savings in Part D are due in large part to a greater than normal number of drugs coming off patent in 2012 and low subscription rates among the elderly. In other words, they aren't much impressed by the Part D savings but in Parts A and B they find significant slowing of growth and attribute much of that to Obamacare. Your guy liked the report enough to use their figure but not enough to then tell you why they thought there were savings. Believe it or not, you don't have to rely on him to do your work or you.



Not really, but I can imagine you are surprised to learn we haven't actually spent a trillion dollars yet.

I've read plenty of other supporting articles, but I'm on the road this week and don't have time to post them here. I won't be offended if you don't take my word for it.

I'm well aware of the way spending under Obamacare is structured. I'm less optimistic that anything will be done to avoid it. That trillion is as good as spent.

[il Padrino Ute]

The Death Panel?

[Katy Lied]

The Death Panel?

Just curious, what is the reason for excluding kids from the adult transplant list. Do the adult organs not fit?

[VirginiaCougar]

Just curious, what is the reason for excluding kids from the adult transplant list. Do the adult organs not fit?

From what I understand, yes that is often the issue.

The ironic thing has been calling Sebelius' decision a "Death Panel." Her not involving herself is exactly the opposite of a death panel - allowing the long-standing policy make the decision, not herself or other people or sentiment. A Death Panel would have been her exempting the policy for the child.

I am very, very pleased it turned out well, but one also has to wonder what happened to the person next in line for the organ who didn't get it because of the publicity approach used here.

[byu71]

Which charge? The penalty for non-compliance? The 3.8 percent on net investment income? Or on the sale of homes?

On those 3 I think a person involved is probably sophisticated enough to know about it. I am talking about the poor suckers who all of sudden notice it on their pay check.

[il Padrino Ute]

From what I understand, yes that is often the issue.

The ironic thing has been calling Sebelius' decision a "Death Panel." Her not involving herself is exactly the opposite of a death panel - allowing the long-standing policy make the decision, not herself or other people or sentiment. A Death Panel would have been her exempting the policy for the child.

I am very, very pleased it turned out well, but one also has to wonder what happened to the person next in line for the organ who didn't get it because of the publicity approach used here.

She didn't involve herself? Then why did a federal court overturn her decision to not waive the rule that a child is too young to be on the list for an adult transplant?

[VirginiaCougar]

She didn't involve herself? Then why did a federal court overturn her decision to not waive the rule that a child is too young to be on the list for an adult transplant?

Waiving the rule, making the decision = Death Panel. Letting the law stand and not involving onself (for right or wrong) =/= Death Panel.

[il Padrino Ute]

Waiving the rule, making the decision = Death Panel. Letting the law stand and not involving onself (for right or wrong) =/= Death Panel.

She made the decision to not waive the rule. Her decision was to let the girl die.

Of course, Sebelius' decision to let the girl die is only a part of the article I linked. Do you want to address the part about a panel that is appointed by the POTUS, confirmed by the Senate and answers to practically nobody?

[All-American]

She made the decision to not waive the rule. Her decision was to let the girl die.

Of course, Sebelius' decision to let the girl die is only a part of the article I linked. Do you want to address the part about a panel that is appointed by the POTUS, confirmed by the Senate and answers to practically nobody?

You've just described the entire judiciary system.

[il Padrino Ute]

You've just described the entire judiciary system.

Ha! Very true.

Of course, the judiciary system tends to mess up the legal lives of the populace, whereas Obamacare will mess up the health of the populace.