Skip to main content

What do the Business Roundtable, the Commonwealth Fund and the New England Journal of Medicine have in common?  A consensus that PPACA absolutely saves money, specifically for small businesses.

The Affordable Care Act helps make it easier for employers to provide health benefits. This year, small businesses are eligible for health care tax credits and starting in 2014, small businesses with up to 100 employees will have access to state-based Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges, which will expand their purchasing power.

The NEJM article references a Rand study, which the L.A. Times describes thusly:

Overall, they estimate that the proportion of U.S. workers who will have access to health insurance through their jobs will jump from 84.6% to 94.6%. That works out to 13.6 million additional workers having the option to buy affordable health plans.

Most of that bump is likely to come from smaller businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

A report by the Commonwealth Fund agrees, concluding that millions of small businesses will benefit from the small business tax credits, that PPACA will extend employer-based coverage to up to 7 mil­lion people.  They note that 16.6 million people work at small businesses that could be eligible for the tax credit, many within the next three years.  And an updated report from CMS Office of the Actuary (OACT) further confirms these analyses:

Today’s report by the Office of the Actuary confirms a central point of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama:  The Act will make health care more affordable for Americans. In fact, the Actuary’s report indicates that total health care spending per insured American will be more than $1000 lower thanks to the provisions of the new law than it would have been if Congress and the President had not acted.

Specifically, by 2019, overall health spending per insured person will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the Act was enacted into law.

...Finally, the Actuary’s report confirms that 33 million Americans who are living without health insurance today will gain coverage

 

Yes; a lot of that is long-term gain and far too many people need relief right now.  Here are some immediate benefits of the law that go into effect for new policies at the end of this month, namely preventive services that must be covered with no out-of-pocket or co-pay expense to the patient:

Autism screening for children at 18 and 24 months

Immunization vaccines for children and adults

Mammography screenings every one to two years for women older than 40.  Pap smears for cervical cancer prevention

HIV screening for all adults at higher risk

Blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol tests

Cancer screenings

Counseling on smoking cessation, weight loss, healthy eating, depression treatments, and reduction of alcohol use

Screening, vaccines, and counseling for healthy pregnancies.  Well-baby and well-child visits up to the age of 21, as well as vision and hearing, developmental assessments, and body mass index (BMI) screenings for obesity.

I think the most undersung provision of PPACA, though, is the one that requires the Health Secretary "to work with states to establish a process for annual reviews of unreasonable increases in premiums."  The funding for that review panel/process was one of the immediate provisions of the Act; it's effective date is certainly this year, if not as I type.  It may sound unassuming and insignificant, but it definitely is not.  PPACA provides for this review process to determine eligibility for participation in the exchanges in 2014.  

The law allows states that have, or plan to implement, measures that require insurance companies to justify their premium increases to be eligible for $250 million in new grants. Insurance companies with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance Exchanges in 2014.

The invisible hand of the free market may be maimed and rather ham-fisted, but no insurance company wants to be shut out of that market.  It's the leverage Sebelius and HHS have been using to get things like early adoption of the extension to 26-year olds.  Or how they quickly gave up the fight about pre-existing conditions for children.  Etc.

Information is awesome voter outreach.

 

Originally posted to Cedwyn on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 06:38 AM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips for progress (28+ / 0-)

    and perseverance in the face of it all.

    and GOTV, of course.  jpmassar's diary...collecting success stories is critically important.

    as are letters to the editor!

    Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

    by Cedwyn on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 06:38:33 AM PDT

  •  Good that after months of noise, the facts are (14+ / 0-)

    coming out. Hopefully the admin will a vigorous job of promoting facts in the coming days.

    •  Few things get me angry... (10+ / 0-)

      The canard that is spread by some kossacks that the The Affordable Care Act is just an insurance giveaway is one of them.

      I mean seriously...how can people gloss over this fact (from Ced's diary):

      The NEJM article references a Rand study, which the L.A. Times describes thusly:

      Overall, they estimate that the proportion of U.S. workers who will have access to health insurance through their jobs will jump from 84.6% to 94.6%. That works out to 13.6 million additional workers having the option to buy affordable health plans.

      Most of that bump is likely to come from smaller businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

      94.6%...with more choices through the exchanges and more people qualifying for Medicaid!!!

      That, plus the consumer protections and new health care clinics, makes this law good for consumers and small businesses.

      "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by APA Guy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 06:52:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The truth won't be understood in time for the Nov (6+ / 0-)

    elections, but hopefully by 2012 the public will actually experience the benefits of the healthcare legislation and the tide of public opinion will turn.

    Meet the Press yesterday was haranguing about how Dems said the Act would be an asset by the 2010 elections as people understood it better and yet now no one is claiming credit for it and many are running away from it.

    But that is because it is not yet understood.  The lies and misinformation have continued.  (The R lie machine is really good.)

    With more time and implementation, people will finally come to understand the benefits it brings.

    Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

    by Happy Days on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 06:52:30 AM PDT

    •  yes, eve (5+ / 0-)

      you are correct.

      Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

      by Cedwyn on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:03:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gee, and that wouldn't have happened... (6+ / 0-)

      anyway...or even if a PO had passed?

      That is a fairly lame strawman by those who poo-poo this law. Since when were health insurance premiums NOT going to skyrocket? Isn't that why we initiated HCR in the first place?

      "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by APA Guy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:24:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The PPACA... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Cedwyn, joedemocrat

        Provides significant money to states to help them control skyrocketing premium costs.  

        Premium cost control is something that states are empowered to do.  Health insurance is sold at the state, not federal level.

        Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for Unreasonable Rate Hikes.  

        The law allows states that have, or plan to implement, measures that require insurance companies to justify their premium increases will be eligible for $250 million in new grants.

        Insurance companies with excessive or unjustified premium exchanges may not be able to participate in the new health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  

        Grants awarded beginning in 2010.

        "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

        by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 09:38:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Eve, health premuims (6+ / 0-)

      are going to go up no matter what - they go up due to corporate greed and not due to the bill..

      And yes the Republicans are going to run around saying the bill is what is raising premuims, the bill is what is limiting choice when these things would have happen anyway..

      We need to fight back against that and this is what Cedwyn is doing here..

      "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

      by joedemocrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:26:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly correct, joedemocrat (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BobTrips, laker

        and when people get their renewals and see the rates skyrocketing who are they going to blame?

        The insurance corporations and Democrats who codified by this law their centrality in our broken health care system.

        •  Which makes it all the more important (9+ / 0-)

          to EDUCATE people about what is really driving the increase in premiums. Diaries like this one are beneficial and necessary. Simply allowing the GOP to get away with a false narrative about HCR is counter-productive.

        •  This is a concern and is what the GOP wants (5+ / 0-)

          and when people get their renewals and see the rates skyrocketing who are they going to blame?

          But the question is what are we doing to counter this? We can't just sit here and let the right
          wing smear us that way and Cedwyn is trying to counter in the diary.

          We must counter this by focusing on what the bill did accomplish, not what it did not. If we focus on the shortcomings and how it didn't cover everyone, how it didn't do this/that, we just feed into the smear campaign.

          I have said the bill was far from perfect. But it will help a lot of people - some 13 million - and that's a lot. And yes we should work to improve it.
          We need to work to cover the remaining uninsured, we need to work to expand the subsidies, we need   to find ways to bring down costs, we need to add regulations.  

          "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

          by joedemocrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:39:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I dunno (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, askew, edwardssl, washunate, kareylou

    I look at what the folks who have been concentrating on this issue (slinkerwink, nyceve) and they are so negative on it, for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS than the right is... yet they see NOTHING GOOD about it...

    I don't know what to think anymore.  

    Solidarity Now. (We can continue this fight later). See you in Washington 10-02-10. (thanks reddbierd)

    by mallyroyal on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:02:56 AM PDT

    •  There are many reasons to be against something (8+ / 0-)

      For well off Americans who hardly worry about health care except as an issue, the increase in taxes might be a very good reason to be against it. People with very good plans will pay a premium in a Cadillac tax, and people who due to income or  trust funds make over a quarter million a year will also pay a Medicare increase.

      But for those of us who have been making do with very poor or no insurance the results are unambiguous. Take it from me, it's a great thing.

      "slip now and you'll fall the rest of your life" Derek Hersey 1957-1993

      by ban nock on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:11:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Time to cut the twisted sisters loose... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, edwardssl, amk for obama

      Those two and a few others got so involved in their desire for a public option that they forgot what health care reform was about.

      We had 40 million Americans who could not afford health insurance/health care.

      We had people who could not purchase health insurance due to preexisting conditions.

      We had people getting kicked off their policies when they got sick.

      We had vast areas of the country under-served by health providers.

      We had hospitals in serious financial problems because the uninsured were using their emergency rooms as health clinics.  Hospitals were going broke, closing their emergency rooms, and leaving poorer parts of cities.

      The PPACA addresses all those, and may more, problems.  We won big.

      The PO was about how insurance premium prices would be made affordable for those 40 million who could not afford premiums.  The idea was that by creating a government insurance company, private insurance companies would be forced to keep their premiums lower.

      The PO was not politically viable.  

      The premium cost problem was solved in other ways.  

      A limit has been placed on how much insurance companies can collect over what they spend on customer care.  

      Insurance companies will be competing in open markets in which it will be easy for buyers to price compare.  

      And, most important, those who need help paying for their health insurance will receive very generous help.  Subsidies will be given even to many who make well over the US median income.

      The problems which we had have been largely solved.  No, not totally, that's always the case with legislation.  There's always more work that has to be done.  Part of the PPACA made more improvements to Medicare, a fifty year old bill.

      The two people you mention, they are hung up on the solution chosen was not the one they wanted.  Their solution might (or might not) have been better, but that's irrelevant.  We got a solution and now it's time to see how it works.  If it doesn't work then we'll know what our next job will be.

      "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

      by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 08:29:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess the WH forgot, too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rick

        Those two and a few others got so involved in their desire for a public option that they forgot what health care reform was about.

        Didn't you get the memo? There is no healthcare reform.

        The Administration calls it health insurance reform.

        The problems which we had have been largely solved.

        More substantively, this is the key difference of opinion. Some of us would argue the opposite. PPACA solves only a tiny but of our problems. The problems in American healthcare largely remain unsolved.

        Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

        by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 08:47:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I didn't get the memo... (4+ / 0-)

          I'm not on any right wing mailing lists.

          "There is no healthcare reform."  Making that statement, gosh, next thing the wingers will be telling us that cutting taxes on the rich will put millions of Americans back to work.

          --

          Are you unaware of the healthcare portions of the PPACA?  

          You don't know about things like free annual physical exams, mammograms, colorectal screenings, anti-smoking funding, vaccinations for children and adults?

          Or increased funding for doctor/physician training?

          Or supporting health care facilities in places which are currently under-served?

          There's more.  You should read up on what we passed.

          Link

          "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

          by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 09:00:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm pointing out that it's the Administration (0+ / 0-)

            driving this. They're the ones who shifted the lingo to HIR. It's comical to go off on eve and slink and others. In fact, they specifically supported the public option as a compromise! You should be thanking them; they went for what was 'possible' instead of the much more reasonable approach of demanding universal health insurance.

            Are you unaware of the healthcare portions of the PPACA?

            Are you unaware of what PPACA doesn't do? You're confused here. You think you're arguing with someone who thinks that PPACA is the most awful thing since bed bugs and Nazis. Hence the language about right wing mailing lists and so forth.

            I'm making a different claim. I'm suggesting that PPACA just doesn't do that much, In the Big Picture. I'm not saying it's horrible; I'm saying it's largely irrelevant, tinkering at the margins. That's in refutation to your claim that

            The problems which we had have been largely solved.

            I'm not saying the problems are worse. I'm saying most of them remain largely unsolved.

            Heck, just listen to Pete Peterson and the President's own catfood commission.

            Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

            by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:32:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Enlighten me... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, joedemocrat, amk for obama

              The PPACA extends health care to essentially all Americans.

              It insures free annual checkups - and all that other stuff I listed.

              It improves access to health care in areas where health care is hard to access.

              It cleans up health care paperwork, thus reducing mistakes.

              It improves preventative care.

              It rewards hospitals for improving care.

              That's some of what it does.

              How about listing what it doesn't do?

              What do we need to work on next?  What needs to be in our 2011 push for even better health care?

              ----
              I'm not saying, never had said, that the PPACA was the end goal, but it is a significant step in getting to that elusive goal.

              As for Pete Peterson and the Catfood Commission.  Too bad you've bought into that FDL misinformation campaign.

              "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

              by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:42:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  lol, yeah, we have a difference of opinion (0+ / 0-)

                The PPACA extends health care to essentially all Americans.

                Coverage in America really isn't the problem. What coverage means is the problem. Most medical-related bankruptcies, for example, involve people who had health insurance. Companies that offer health insurance spend far more per worker per year than the entire cost of healthcare in other advanced economies. We haven't decided what healthcare is or who should pay for it. That's a lot of decision-making left to happen.

                It insures free annual checkups - and all that other stuff I listed.

                No, it shifts the cost of annual checkups from co-pays and deductibles to premiums. They're not free. Med schools aren't reducing tuition. Specialists aren't giving some of their income to primary care physicians. There is no cost savings; it's a cost transfer. etc.

                As for Pete Peterson and the Catfood Commission.  Too bad you've bought into that FDL misinformation campaign.

                This is one of the things that's really sad about the meta wars. How one could possibly equate opposition to Pete Peterson as a misinformation campaign is simply beyond me. How one could support a Democratic President creating a body staffed with people designed to cut entitlements while protecting financial bailouts and defense spending is just beyond my comprehension. Not only is the deficit obviously not a major concern - look at the trillions spent on corporate welfare - but people like Alan Simpson and David Cote have no business being anywhere near a body investigating what to do about the federal budget.

                If you're interested in defending the assault on social insurance, then our differences are way too far to bridge. But it could lead to some interesting conversations. See you around.

                Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

                by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:52:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What a pile of shit... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joedemocrat

                  You list zero health care problems left to be addressed.

                  You state that health insurance coverage in America is not a problem when 40 million Americans can't afford health insurance and some 40,000 die unnecessary deaths each year because they can't afford health care.

                  You argue that "free"/no out-of-pocket cost to individuals will do nothing to save health costs.  Clearly finding problems early means 'cheaper to treat'.

                  You state that President Obama created a commission "staffed with people designed to cut entitlements while protecting financial bailouts and defense spending" which is simply a lie.

                  And then you end this post of misinformation with "See you later" rather than listing the health care issues which we need to next address.

                  Pathetic....

                  "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

                  by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:01:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  okay, I'll bite (0+ / 0-)

                    You state that President Obama created a commission "staffed with people designed to cut entitlements while protecting financial bailouts and defense spending" which is simply a lie.

                    What's the purpose of the fiscal commission? Why are the people involved qualified to pursue this purpose?

                    You list zero health care problems left to be addressed.

                    I understand why you would ignore my statement, because it's a pretty strong indictment:

                    We haven't decided what healthcare is or who should pay for it. That's a lot of decision-making left to happen.

                    If you really think that going from a $25 or $50 co-pay to no co-pay for an annual physical is a major change to the American healthcare system, that's cool, that's your belief. But I don't know why you refuse to accept that there's another legitimate perspective, which is the argument that these tweaks just don't amount to much in comparison to the aggregate size of the problem. And the evidence which would support such a claim is the fact that healthcare continues to be too expensive. We continue to ration care based upon ability to pay, and this shortcoming makes all of us worse off. Growth in healthcare costs continues to outstrip growth in the rest of economy. Drug dealers, hospital franchises, and others continue taking excess profits at the expense of consumers. For goodness sakes, PPACA didn't even allow Medicare to negotiate volume discounts in its procurement process. It didn't even give consumers the choice of buying into a government-run health insurance plan.

                    That's why I said I'll see you around. I enjoy the conversation, but we're pretty much beating a dead horse here. I think both our positions are pretty clear.

                    Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

                    by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:25:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •   National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Cedwyn

                      Reform

                      From the Commission's Charter...

                      Description of Duties.

                      The functions of the Commission are advisory only. The Commission shall propose recommendations to balance the budget, excluding interest payment on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations to the President that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

                      The Commission shall provide its advice and recommendations, analysis, and information directly to the President. In providing the President this advice, the Commission should reflect the judgment and views of the members of the Commission. To meet these objectives, the Commission will conduct such activities as necessary. The President may direct the Commission to provide its analysis, information, and advice and recommendations to any agency with responsibilities relevant to the mission identified in the Charter, to Congress, or any other relevant congressional committee.

                      http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/...

                      How are the members qualified?

                      Who is on the commission?

                      The commission is composed of 10 Democrats and eight Republicans.

                      Six members were chosen by the president. He appointed co-chairs Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who was White House chief of staff for President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming (watch their interview on the NewsHour). He also named three Democrats: Alice Rivlin, a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve who also served as director of the Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office; Andrew Stern, retiring president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union; and Ann Fudge, former head of Young & Rubicam Brands, a global marketing and communications company. He also named one Republican: David Cote, the CEO and chairman of Honeywell, a technology and manufacturing company.

                      Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi each picked three congressional Democrats: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee; and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate; Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the Budget and Ways and Means committees; and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and

                      Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee.

                      Congressional Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner also appointed three members each. They are Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has sponsored legislation aimed at spending cuts; Sen. Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, a member of the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee; Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, an outspoken proponent of deficit reduction; and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the top Republican on the House Budget Committee.

                      Bruce Reed, the CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council and a former Clinton White House official, serves as executive director for the commission

                      Link

                      "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

                      by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:41:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I ignore what statement? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Cedwyn

                      This one?

                      Coverage in America really isn't the problem. What coverage means is the problem. Most medical-related bankruptcies, for example, involve people who had health insurance. Companies that offer health insurance spend far more per worker per year than the entire cost of healthcare in other advanced economies. We haven't decided what healthcare is or who should pay for it. That's a lot of decision-making left to happen.

                      1. I pointed out to you that coverage certainly is a problem for 40 million Americans.
                      1. The PPACA guarantees that people will not be dropped from their coverage if they get really sick - an end to cost caps.  And annual out of pocket expenses are limited.
                      1. One of the reasons that companies spend large amounts for employee health care is that each family policy is charged almost $1,000 each year to defray the costs of treating the uninsured.  With people being able to seek medical treatment earlier and in less expensive settings (rather than hospital emergency rooms) those costs will disappear from existing policies.
                      1. We know who will pay for health care.  For those with limited incomes, there will be either free government paid for health care.  For others there will be generous federal subsidies which will fade out as people's incomes exceed the federal median level.

                      You really should know this stuff.  It's very basic information....

                      "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

                      by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:50:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, health care costs are rising faster... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Cedwyn

                      than some other parts of our economy.

                      I'd like to see some data on excess profits.  

                      I'd be extremely surprised to see that hospitals are making excessive profits, most seem to be struggling to keep going.

                      Drug companies, I recall hearing make about a 10% return on capital, standard profits.  But I haven't found anything to prove/disprove that.  I did find a statement that drug company profits "amount to only about 2 percent of total health care spending".

                      For people to blame drug and insurance company profits for their predicament is just ignorant. People simply do not know what drives costs," said Uwe E. Reinhardt, the James Madison Professor of Political Economy at Princeton University. "What drives prices is the amount of services people are getting, plus the prices doctors and hospitals charge for those services."

                      Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, a service of Harris Interactive, added: "These findings show how little most people understand the economics of health care. Increased profits of insurers and drug companies (if they have increased at all) cannot possibly account for the increases in premiums. Many health-care economists attribute the increased cost of care to increased demand and utilization, increased prices and the increased use of expensive tests and treatments. Most people, as shown here, do not think of these as the main drivers of increased health-care spending."

                      Link

                      "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

                      by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 05:01:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Uh..nobody ever said it was to be free (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cedwyn

                  In regard to this

                  In regard to this

                  No, it shifts the cost of annual checkups from co-pays and deductibles to premiums. They're not free

                  Did anyone ever say that expanding access to health care would ever be free?  The goal of spreading the cost of prevenative care through premuims is so all people can get prevenative care. This is a fairer way. Why should the middle class and the wealthy be able to get prevenative care but not the poor?

                  Again, we need to focus on what the bill accomplish not its shortcomings. To do otherwise just feeds into the right wing attack machine..

                  "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

                  by joedemocrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:26:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  so you are saying then (0+ / 0-)

              It's comical to go off on eve and slink and others. In fact, they specifically supported the public option as a compromise! You should be thanking them; they went for what was 'possible' instead of the much more reasonable approach of demanding universal health insurance.

              that incrementalism doesn't suck?

              Die with your boots on. Gonna try? Well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

              by Cedwyn on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:31:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It is time for the Democrats to go on the offense (5+ / 0-)

        about health care reform. Don't run from the bill but keep repeating what it will accomplish. That's what the Republicans would do if they passed a bill whos popularity was declining in the polls..We need to push back against attacks from the right and the left and say "hey this is what it will do" and yes it was worth passing.

        "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

        by joedemocrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 10:18:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely. (4+ / 0-)

          This is one of the Democrats major victories.  It ranks up there with Social Security, Medicare, and all the other safety net programs that Democrats have produced.

          We have extended health care to all Americans.  Not just to those who are able to afford it.

          It's not enough for the Administration to put out the message.  Remember, most of the message will be ignored by the corporate media.

          It's up to us to help spread the word.  

          Get a set of talking points about the benefits of the PPACA so that you are ready to educate others with whom you come into contact.

          --

          And yes, boo-birds, the job is not yet finished.  We've got more work to do.

          But if we don't help people realize what good has been done it will be much harder to make the next steps.

          "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

          by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 10:33:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this Cedwyn.. (10+ / 0-)

    The information in this diary needs to be repeated and repeated..

    "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

    by joedemocrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:21:47 AM PDT

  •  But does it save the government money? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LI Mike, laker

    That was the goal of the PPACA in case you've forgotten. From what I'm seeing as a health care administrator, the government is going to have to subsidize so many employers and individuals, that I have a hard time believing that it will save them money. Please don't show me CBO estimates; the CBO is never right.

    I'm not worried about your state of mind, 'cause, you're not the revolutionary kind - Gomez

    by jhecht on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 07:49:47 AM PDT

  •  um, tax credits don't save money (0+ / 0-)

    They shift money around.

    This year, small businesses are eligible for health care tax credits

    Overall, they estimate that the proportion of U.S. workers who will have access to health insurance through their jobs will jump from 84.6% to 94.6%. That works out to 13.6 million additional workers having the option to buy affordable health plans.

    We already have exchanges right now where individuals can buy insurance. Companies already have brokers right now who go out shopping for rates with insurance companies. To finagle the tax implications, more companies at the margins will offer basic plans employees can choose to buy into. Unless you're also raising wages at the same time, that's just shuffling papers around.

    Part of the reason for that growth is that the policies that will be offered through the exchanges will be less expensive, the researchers said. Small companies will be able to band together to pool their risk, which will give them more leverage to bargain with insurance companies. It also means their premiums should be more stable from year to year.

    Gee, why don't we just have one risk pool, then?

    I sympathize with the desire to highlight aspects of PPACA that are progress, but I don't understand the desire to oversell the bill. Health insurance is continuing to get more expensive. The employer-based benefits system is collapsing, and all that tax credits do is misallocate resources. They don't save money.

    Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

    by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

    •  No offense, but given the choice... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, BobTrips, amk for obama

      between your assessment and that of the New England Journal of Medicine, I think I'll take theirs.

      Nothing personal...

      "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by APA Guy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 09:31:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        The White House blog post didn't say it would save money. It said

        Two New Studies: Health Reform Benefits Small Business

        And specifically on the NEJM, here's what the White House said

        Yesterday, the Rand Corporation released a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine that indicated that the Affordable Care Act will strengthen employer-based health insurance.

        And are you saying that RAND studies are the bastion of Democratic thought?

        It's the diarist claiming that this

        saves money

        Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

        by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:38:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  One of the things I point out to (0+ / 0-)

    people here in NYS is that NYers subsidize providers to the tune of $847 million through a mechanism known as bad debt and charity care pools. Uninsureds do not contribute to this pool, insured NYers do. Other than hospital Reimbursement Directors and CFOs not many people know about this.  

    The larger issue is that billions of dollars are directed to providers in one form or another to (partially) cover the costs of charity care and bad debts in the U.S. now.

    Health care reform reduces the need for these pools.

    •  People with insurance... (0+ / 0-)

      Pay, on average, just under $1,000 per year to subsidize those who do not have insurance.

      The uninsured turn up in emergency rooms and receive very expensive treatment.  Someone has to pay for that treatment, the uninsured generally don't.

      "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

      by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 09:41:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site