Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

backscatter712

(26,357 posts)
28. There's also a lot of under-the-hood reforms that already are reducing costs...
Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:41 AM
Dec 2013

Like the cap on the medical loss ratio, means that more of our insurance premiums are going to pay for medical care, and less for the CEO's 600 foot yacht.

Or the restructuring of Medicare payments from pay-per-procedure to pay-per-patient, meaning that there's less incentive for sleazy hospitals to run up the bill with zillions of expensive tests, and that hospitals will be more motivated to treat you correctly the first time so they don't have to pay for a re-admission.

Don't believe me? Believe the Nobel-prize winning economist...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131129&_r=1&

Obamacare’s Secret Success
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 28, 2013 760 Comments

Much of the Beltway establishment scoffed at the promise of cost savings. The prevalent attitude in Washington is that reform isn’t real unless the little people suffer; serious savings are supposed to come from things like raising the Medicare age (which the Congressional Budget Office recently concluded would, in fact, hardly save any money) and throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. True, a 2011 letter signed by hundreds of health and labor economists pointed out that “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending.” But such expert views were largely ignored.

So, how’s it going? The health exchanges are off to a famously rocky start, but many, though by no means all, of the cost-control measures have already kicked in. Has the curve been bent?

The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.

O.K., the obligatory caveats. First of all, we don’t know how long the good news will last. Health costs in the United States slowed dramatically in the 1990s (although not this dramatically), probably thanks to the rise of health maintenance organizations, but cost growth picked up again after 2000. Second, we don’t know for sure how much of the good news is because of the Affordable Care Act.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Can you imagine the relief that small businesses and other employers will enjoy? NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #1
The ACA doesn't actually reduce the cost of healthcare. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #2
Subsidies will shift cost burden NoOneMan Dec 2013 #4
Yep. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #11
To those who are wealthier, and have the ability to pay. backscatter712 Dec 2013 #26
Math is hard. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #9
OK, so math is hard for you. You also seem to have trouble with the English language. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #10
By your peculiar 'logic' Chained CPI wouldn't be a benefit cut. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #12
Jeez, you really do have trouble with the english language. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #13
His point is correct quaker bill Dec 2013 #16
Exercise reduces weight. But, if you eat 5000 calories a day you're still going to gain weight. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #20
I can't explain it any simplier. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #22
You argued that the ACA merely redistributes costs rather than having any negative geek tragedy Dec 2013 #23
No, I said ACA didn't reduce the cost of healthcare. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #24
Here's what you said. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #25
Wow, you finally moved on from the first sentence! DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #27
No, you were wrong on substance. Dishonestly so to the point where you lied and said geek tragedy Dec 2013 #30
Nope, you are wrong. So sorry you don't understand semantics. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #31
Pretty eager to change the subject. Yes or no: geek tragedy Dec 2013 #32
LOL. I'm eager to change the subject??? You're talking about Chained CPI on a discussion about ACA DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #33
I have my answer: you think Chained CPI is NOT a reduction in benefits. nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #34
I have an answer: you are desperate to change the subject. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #35
No, I'm applying your peculiar logic to another issue to see if you really believe geek tragedy Dec 2013 #36
Nope, your trying to change the subject. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #37
I think your sophistry and agenda has been pretty well revealed here. geek tragedy Dec 2013 #38
Whatever you say. Now go back to regurgitating Cheney, Fleischer, and Rove's NSA talking points. DesMoinesDem Dec 2013 #39
As a stimulus? I dunno about that argument in the near term. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #14
I agree with you. I'm not certain that the economic benefits of the ACA are geek tragedy Dec 2013 #21
The ACA doesn't reduce healthcare costs because Keefer Dec 2013 #15
There's also a lot of under-the-hood reforms that already are reducing costs... backscatter712 Dec 2013 #28
If You Read My Inquiry Carefully In My OP - I'm Not Talking About Healthcare Costs .... global1 Dec 2013 #29
Increasing disposable income, no strings attached, is rather a weaker form of stimulus NoOneMan Dec 2013 #3
i hope so! Liberal_in_LA Dec 2013 #5
Trickle up instead of trickling down on someone Lifelong Dem Dec 2013 #6
The idea was to fix, finally, the US healthcare system bhikkhu Dec 2013 #7
Proves that the NHS rocks. n/t Laelth Dec 2013 #18
A lot of them (myself included) were paying nothing before subterranean Dec 2013 #8
Of course, global.. another reason for republicons to Cha Dec 2013 #17
Like for food and rent? WinkyDink Dec 2013 #19
Yes. Orsino Dec 2013 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Money People Will Sav...»Reply #28