Oregon Study Shows Obamacare Will NOT Reduce Costs

[Malice]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/he...me&ref=general

In a continuing study, an all-star group of researchers following Ms. Parris and tens of thousands of other Oregonians has found that gaining insurance makes people feel healthier, happier and more financially stable.

Placebo effect. There's at least one study where they didn't rely on self-reported gauges and it found no difference in health. How can this be? The ever present problem of that which is seen and that which is not seen. You only focus on the cases were it did help people and never consider the net loss due to negative effects, such as increased wait times.

The insured also spend more on health care, dashing some hopes of preventive-medicine advocates who have argued that coverage can save money — by keeping people out of emergency rooms, for instance. In Oregon, the newly insured spent an average of $778 a year, or 25 percent, more on health care than those who did not win insurance.

If you try to explain this to a leftist here's well they'll likely redirect the argument. How I would explain it is this: I am not arguing about morality or saving lives, that's besides the point. What I am arguing is that providing people with insurance will not reduce total costs, the argument that health care costs are high because people put of getting treatment and then have to go to the emergency room is false. If you support Obamacare, in order to be truthful, you must accept that, it may substantially raise costs, but that you value people having insurance more than those costs.

Another thing is that some of the projected savings are due to double counting and other accounting gimmicks:

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/...nting-edition/

Not to mention the whole hosts of other myths I won't get into. This is just about Obamacare.

[Malice]

Damn New York Times and their neoconservatism. Paul Krugman is worse than Mussolini.

[Trix Are For Kids]

It's not about reducing costs you stupid fuck. It IS, in fact, about giving the majority of the people in this country what the fuck they pay for.

The government takes taxes, the least it can do is enable you with the tools to stay healthy.

EDIT: And you are a part of that group of people. Don't think for a second you're not.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Trix Are For Kids

It's not about reducing costs you stupid fuck. It IS, in fact, about giving the majority of the people in this country what the fuck they pay for.

The government takes taxes, the least it can do is enable you with the tools to stay healthy.

"What the fuck they pay for"? Do you actually have any idea what the government does with those taxes?

[Trix Are For Kids]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

"What the fuck they pay for"? Do you actually have any idea what the government does with those taxes?

What, you mean send like a quarter of it to other countries, another quarter to prosecute the people in this country who are just trying to get ahead and fuck others over because it's our nature, another quarter to the sham "educational" systems and war on inanimate substances and poor Muslims who just want us to leave them the fuck alone, and finally the last quarter to maintain the failing infrastructure and their own paychecks as well as the interests of their friends?

...And then borrow still MORE in order to cope with the result of those misallocations?

Yeah, I have some idea of what my government does with my taxes. I for one think the best thing the taxes ever did was make me pay more money for guns and ammunition. At least now those fuckers' heads popping will be worth more to me.

[Iehovah]

Given that you mention the misallocation and waste, and ONLY these things, I'm going to take that answer for a no rather than a yes.

It occurs to me, however, that this is a distraction from the actual point - the whole line of "now I'm getting something for my money" is bullshit. Why? Because you're not. You're getting a mandate that says that those who aren't actually paying taxes must receive insurance coverage, and that those who are paying taxes must buy it or be penalized.

And you think the government is giving you something you paid for? Are you fucking kidding me?

Maybe in the original vision of what PPACA was supposed to be, but not now.

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by Trix Are For Kids

It's not about reducing costs you stupid fuck. It IS, in fact, about giving the majority of the people in this country what the fuck they pay for.

The government takes taxes, the least it can do is enable you with the tools to stay healthy.

EDIT: And you are a part of that group of people. Don't think for a second you're not.

Lol, Malice is delusional. He's an SSI collecting free market libertarian.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

No. Noooooo! Thas a lie! Complete Fox News Republican Bush Administration propaganda! It's because Obama is black!

[Tachosomoza]

You're not funny.

[crazzyass]

Malice, I'll read over that when I have more time. It may be correct. Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if people spent more on healthcare when they aren't paying out of their own pocket. Seems like a no-brainer. I will also add that the CBO, which is held in high regard by most academics and both political parties, showed that it reduced the deficit some, mostly through fees and increased taxes. Also, covering more people will by definition cost more money, but spreading it around cuts down on cost to individuals.

All of that said, I do support ObamaCare, but it sure as hell isn't my first or even second pick for a healthcare solution. It is a conservative idea adopted in the hopes of bipartisan support, and that backfired because Obama forgot that Republicans fucking hate him no matter what he does. Individual mandates came about from the Gingrich House in the 90's as an answer to Clinton's universal healthcare proposal (back when the R's actually had counterproposals instead of failing their 80 year old, wrinkled white wrists screaming "NOOO!"), which I can respect. The mandates were even used as recently as the early 00's, in Massachusetts under Romney.

So this still-flawed improvement has kinks in it. I'm not surprised. Universal coverage would be loads better. But it's still improvement. It may directly cost more, but the benefit of a vibrant, healthy population is far more positive than that cost.

[DiStOrTiOn]

does this mean that people aged 21-26 won't be saving money, even though they can now stay on a family coverage plan until they're 26 rather than 21 as it was prior to obamacare?

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

does this mean that people aged 21-26 won't be saving money, even though they can now stay on a family coverage plan until they're 26 rather than 21 as it was prior to obamacare?

No, they'd save money. Malice is saying that it would result in overall greater cost for the healthcare system.

[Tachosomoza]

Please don't start that troll. You seem good at that too, I saw you spend an entire night fighting with WAN.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Please don't start that troll. You seem good at that too, I saw you spend an entire night fighting with WAN.

Sir, I'm untrollable.

[Tachosomoza]

Fine then, make 20 pages of posts that the person you're arguing with isn't reading.

[Malice]

But it's still improvement. It may directly cost more, but the benefit of a vibrant, healthy population is far more positive than that cost.

Health insurance =/= healthy vibrant population. The vast majority of deaths are due to self imposed harm, and the government has greatly affected that by promoting the lipid hypothesis, it is NOT due to McDonalds.

If getting health insurance improves the health of people, why is it that when they don't rely on self-reported gauges they find no difference in health? Why is it that Kronick, who served as a senior health care policy adviser in the Clinton administration, found no difference in deaths between people that had insurance and those that didn't?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rly-because-t/

The lower life expectancy than in other countries? Account for deaths due to accident and homicide:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...fe-expectancy/

The low rating of the US health system? Look at what determines the rating!

You can also compare them between members of a race, Whites here to Europeans, Japanese to Japanese in Japan. Their very close. Blacks bring down the average (RACISM!!!)

Infant mortality? Once again, look at the differences in how they're counted and the effects of race.

And what about the unintended consequences? Romneycare cost far more than expected and wait times went up significantly.

It will not lead to a healthier population and will not reduce healthcare costs. Taxing people more does not equal reducing health care costs.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Malice

Health insurance =/= healthy vibrant population. The vast majority of deaths are due to self imposed harm, and the government has greatly affected that by promoting the lipid hypothesis, it is NOT due to McDonalds.

You're asserting suicide is the leading cause of death?

The top two leading causes, cancer and heart disease, are directly related to diet...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

If getting health insurance improves the health of people, why is it that when they don't rely on self-reported gauges they find no difference in health? Why is it that Kronick, who served as a senior health care policy adviser in the Clinton administration, found no difference in deaths between people that had insurance and those that didn't?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rly-because-t/

The lower life expectancy than in other countries? Account for deaths due to accident and homicide:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...fe-expectancy/

The low rating of the US health system? Look at what determines the rating!

You can also compare them between members of a race, Whites here to Europeans, Japanese to Japanese in Japan. Their very close. Blacks bring down the average (RACISM!!!)

Infant mortality? Once again, look at the differences in how they're counted and the effects of race.

And what about the unintended consequences? Romneycare cost far more than expected and wait times went up significantly.

It will not lead to a healthier population and will not reduce healthcare costs. Taxing people more does not equal reducing health care costs.

Boiling this argument down, you're saying that if we don't include black people in our stats, our healthcare quality is comparable to other countries?

wut

wut

wut

I don't even...this is pretty bad, Malice. Even for you. Congratulations, you have rendered me speechless. This rarely happens.

"These healthcare stats are horrible."

"Yeah yeah, just ignore black people and they don't look so bad. Also, we're not racist at all as a country. Minorities not only have shitty healthcare, our solution to improving healthcare numbers is acting like minorities don't exist."

[Malice]

No, that was not my only, oh, fuck it, I'm going to watch anime or something. Just do the same.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Malice

No, that was not my only, oh, fuck it, I'm going to watch anime or something. Just do the same.

No, not your only point. But it was still your point.

Jesus Christ man. Massive racism aside, it's shitty reasoning. "Look, if we ignore all the bad numbers that bring our average down, our average looks good!"

Yeah, no shit.

[Tachosomoza]

The kicker is that this shit is coming from a Guatemalan anchor baby. I wonder what it is with all the self hating minorities on Zoklet. If the shit he's constantly agitating for was ever implemented, he'd be either deported or killed.

Originally Posted by crazzyass

You're asserting suicide is the leading cause of death?

The top two leading causes, cancer and heart disease, are directly related to diet...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm



Boiling this argument down, you're saying that if we don't include black people in our stats, our healthcare quality is comparable to other countries?

wut

wut

wut

I don't even...this is pretty bad, Malice. Even for you. Congratulations, you have rendered me speechless. This rarely happens.

"These healthcare stats are horrible."

"Yeah yeah, just ignore black people and they don't look so bad. Also, we're not racist at all as a country. Minorities not only have shitty healthcare, our solution to improving healthcare numbers is acting like minorities don't exist."

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

No, not your only point. But it was still your point.

Jesus Christ man. Massive racism aside, it's shitty reasoning. "Look, if we ignore all the bad numbers that bring our average down, our average looks good!"

Yeah, no shit.

We should only be counting the health of humans. The average human in america has great health and healthcare.

Niggers bring down the average, but it skews the statistics because niggers aren't human.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

No, not your only point. But it was still your point.

Jesus Christ man. Massive racism aside, it's shitty reasoning. "Look, if we ignore all the bad numbers that bring our average down, our average looks good!"

Yeah, no shit.

Why are the numbers bad? Racism?

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Malice

Why are the numbers bad? Racism?

No, Malice.

You're getting worse. Before, you'd quote a shitty Mises study or something like that, at least pretend to be academic.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

You're not funny.

And you're not a convincing troll.

[nshanin]

Why are health care costs so much lower wherever they are socialized? By the end of next month, nobody except desperate Dems and incompetent O'bomba will be arguing for this health care bill--it has all been a tragic farce from start to finish.

[zuperxtreme]

[Malice]

Yup. Healthcare, simple enough to be summed up by a cartoon.

What is insurance? Why don't we force insurance companies to sell people insurance after their homes burn down? Is it fair that they lose so much because they made a mistake or couldn't pay? Clearly people don't understand what insurance is. You may as well be mad at them for not just giving money to people. Regardless, on the net, it may have no significant effect.

Whatever, you'll get what you deserve. The god will fall again.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Malice

Yup. Healthcare, simple enough to be summed up by a cartoon.

What is insurance? Why don't we force insurance companies to sell people insurance after their homes burn down? Is it fair that they lose so much because they made a mistake or couldn't pay? Clearly people don't understand what insurance is. You may as well be mad at them for not just giving money to people. Regardless, on the net, it may have no significant effect.

Whatever, you'll get what you deserve. The god will fall again.

Apples and oranges. Home insurance companies don't refuse people applying for insurance.

[Tachosomoza]

Do you have insurance, Malice? I've never seen a poor man suck the rich man's dick so hard and for so little.

[Rust]

Misleading OP is misleading.

The article doesn't deal with Obamacare. The article deals with an Oregon lottery of healthcare. So unless you're suggesting that because a lottery of healthcare in Oregon didn't reduce costs (though it did have financial beneffits you conveniently failed to mention) that Obamacare wouldn't reduce cost either, you have no point.

And if that's what you were trying to say, then you have to provide something meaningful to support that argument other than "lulz they both gave healthcare".

Here's the financial benefit you didn't mention:

"Getting insurance also had powerful financial effects, the study showed. The insured were 25 percent less likely to have an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency and 40 percent less likely to borrow money or skip paying other bills in order to cover their medical costs. "

[Rust]

Oh, and to clear up another lie by Malice, the study cited in the OP doesn't rely on "self-reported gauges". It does use them sure, but they also use data obtained from hospital outcomes and financial data like credit reports. "Placebo effect" ( ) doesn't explain the objective data they used.

[Haiti's Space Agency]

OP is a disinformation agent hired by republicans to spread bullshit across the net.

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by a224

OP is a disinformation agent hired by republicans to spread bullshit across the net.

Nah, he's just a troll. Or a masochist.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by Rust

The article doesn't deal with Obamacare. The article deals with an Oregon lottery of healthcare. So unless you're suggesting that because a lottery of healthcare in Oregon didn't reduce costs (though it did have financial beneffits you conveniently failed to mention) that Obamacare wouldn't reduce cost either, you have no point.

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. AFAIK none of the plans offered on the health exchanges will be high deductible/catastrophic coverage plans, which will increase the reliance on third party payments and disregarding of prices. When the price mechanism breaks, this is what happens, learn some economics. In Switzerland, which is touted as an example of how Obamacare could work, the percentage spent out of pocket is two and half times higher than here. Out of pocket costs, such as with deductibles, are important for controlling costs by reducing overutilization and possibly increasing price sensitivity. The same is true for most other countries in the eurozone.

And the penalty for not being insured is cheaper than what it would cost to buy health insurance.

Romneycare ended up costing over 11 times the initial estimate.

And there has been a study that looked at the effects of Medicare 10 years after its introduction:http://economics.mit.edu/files/1820

Result? Likely no significant net effect for mortality.

"Getting insurance also had powerful financial effects, the study showed. The insured were 25 percent less likely to have an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency and 40 percent less likely to borrow money or skip paying other bills in order to cover their medical costs. "

I don't deny it, but so what? You have to look at the net effect. On the economic effect: reduced out of pocket spending will not have a positive effect on prices (will drive them up).

About the reported improvement:

However, two-thirds of the improvement in self-reported health occurred almost immediately after enrollment, before any increases in medical consumption. The authors posit that much of this improvement could reflect “an improved overall sense of well-being” rather than “changes in objective physical health.”

[Your Grace]

I bet you have a tiny penis.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Nah, he's just a troll. Or an aspie.

FTFY

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Malice

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. AFAIK none of the plans offered on the health exchanges will be high deductible/catastrophic coverage plans, which will increase the reliance on third party payments and disregarding of prices. When the price mechanism breaks, this is what happens, learn some economics. In Switzerland, which is touted as an example of how Obamacare could work, the percentage spent out of pocket is two and half times higher than here. The same is true for most other countries in the eurozone.

I'm in a hurry so I'll deal with your argument later, however please not how your assessment has nothing to do with the study you were misrepresenting. That argument right there doesn't rely on the Oregon study (which is not really comparable to "Obamacare"). The Oregon study simply does not show what you claimed it showed.

And there has been a study that looked at the effects of Medicare 10 years after its introduction:http://economics.mit.edu/files/1820

Result? Likely no significant net effect for mortality.

Yeah, for mortality. How about you don't conveniently fail to mention their other conclusions?

"Our results suggest that, in its first 10
years, the establishment of universal health insurance
for the elderly had no discernible impact on elderly
mortality. However, we find a subs
tantial reduction in the elderly’s exposure to out of pocket medical
expenditure risk. Specifically, we estimate that the
introduction of Medicare was associated with a forty
percent decline in out of pocket spending for the t
op quartile of the out of pocket spending distribution."

I don't deny it, but so what? You have to look at the net effect. On the economic effect: reduced out of pocket spending will not have a positive effect on prices (will drive them up).

And the net effect was positive. The Oregon study showed positive results, overall, among those those who got healthcare through the lottery. There were clear financial benefits, and while yes, there was an increase in costs, that can be attributed to those without insurance being unwilling to spend for healthcare in the first place (and thus having less costs to begin with).

About the reported improvement:

However, two-thirds of the improvement in self-reported health occurred almost immediately after enrollment, before any increases in medical consumption. The authors posit that much of this improvement could reflect “an improved overall sense of well-being” rather than “changes in objective physical health.”

Yeah, read your own quote, "two-thirds of the improvement in self-reported health". Nobody is saying that a pleacebo effect couldn't be responsible for the self-reported health indicators. The issue was that's not the only evidence they had. They used objective (i.e. not "self-reported") out comes from hospitals, and they used credit-reports and other financial data to determine the financial benefits.

Your "placebo effect" excuse doesn't work there.

[Malice]

If we spent 50% on GDP on health care the net effect would likely be positive. How do you put a price on life and health?

You most certainly can, but that's another topic that I don't feel like writing about right now.

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube
Video: click to display

Mah nigga Friedman.

There are alternatives. You have to look at what would provide the best balance between health and spending, and I argue that Obamacare most certainly is not it, and even single payer isn't it. It's the market.

[Malice]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-becoming.html

The Disaster that Romneycare is Becoming
Anyone who understands basic economics and how interventionist government leads to greater interventionist government knew this was going to happen. Market price signals are destroyed, supply and demand distortions start to occur and the regulative power centers are captured bu insiders. Costs go up, care goes down and the only solution the interventionists can think of are more interventions.

WSJ has the details (my bold):
So Boston's latest adventure deserves particular scrutiny, since odds are its methods are coming soon to a hospital near you. After more than a year and a half of debate, last week the legislature passed a far-reaching "cost containment" bill that Democratic Governor Deval Patrick is about to sign. It is the inevitable postscript to the model that Mitt Romney introduced in 2006.
The claim then, as with the Affordable Care Act, was that health care would be less expensive if everyone had insurance. Soon Massachusetts Democrats leaked that their political strategy all along was to expand coverage only, because had RomneyCare seriously squeezed providers it never would have overcome industry opposition. "Bending the curve" on costs could be saved for another day, once a vast new government liability was locked in.
Sure enough, 79% of the newly insured are on public programs. Health costs—Medicaid, RomneyCare's subsidies, public-employee compensation—will consume some 54% of the state budget in 2012, up from about 24% in 2001. Over the same period state health spending in real terms has jumped by 59%, while education has fallen 15%, police and firemen by 11% and roads and bridges by 23%.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts spends more per capita on health care than any other state and therefore more than anywhere else in the industrialized world. Costs are 27% higher than the U.S. average, 15% higher when adjusted for the state's higher wages and its concentration of academic medical centers and specialists...
The health-care postman always rings twice, and now medicine itself is the target, instead of unsympathetic insurance companies. Under the plan, all Massachusetts doctors, hospitals and other providers must register with a new state bureaucracy as a condition of licensure—that is, permission to practice. They'll be required to track and report their financial performance, price and cost trends, state-sanctioned quality measures, market share and other metrics...
An 11-member board known as the Health Policy Commission will use the data to set and enforce rules to ensure that total Massachusetts health spending, public and private, grows no more than projected gross state product through 2017, and 0.5 percentage points lower thereafter. (And Paul Ryan's Medicare projections are unrealistic?)
No registered provider is allowed to make "any material change to its operations or governance structure," the bill says, without the commission's approval. The commission can also rewrite the terms of provider contracts with insurers and payment levels and methods if they are "deemed to be excessive."
As the commission polices the market, it can decide to supervise the behavior of any provider that exceeds some to-be-specified individual benchmark—that is, doctors and hospitals that are spending too much on patient care. These delinquents must submit a "performance improvement plan" that the commission must endorse.
In other words, the commission is empowered to control the practice and organization of medicine.
Bottom line, healthcare in Massachusetts, i.e. Romneycare, is becoming a centrally planned sewer pit. And Obamacare is Romneycare on steroids. Stay healthy my friends, the quality of healthcare is about to nosedive in America. It won't happen over night, but it will creep up on us with centrally planned micro-regulation after micro-regulation. If you think TSA treatment of passengers is bureaucratic madness, mixed with crony radiation machines, way for the absurdity of medical treatment that is a combination of Obamacare and crony pharma.

Romneycare is only the teaser.

Yeah, what did I tell you guys? Honestly, it's a 2000 page bill and people blindly accept these 5 line arguments in favor of it. Geez, did you ever consider that there may be multiple potential trainwrecks in it? Teabaggers aren't the only people criticizing it.

"But costs have been slowing down compared to the rest of the states."

Yes, the costs went up due to Romneycare, which didn't effect the other states, then Obamacare was passed and the rest had their chance to play catch-up. This is not a sign that it is succeeding.

[Haiti's Space Agency]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

is that how its really going to work?