What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Rover said:
I thought healthcare costs were supposed to EXPLODE after the ACA went into effect? Funny how much less we've been spending and are expected to spend...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102570162
Click to expand...
Clearly it's just as you say and nothing else could be skewing these numbers in the ACA's favor after a superficial glance.

The lingering effects of the recession, slow income growth and possibly Obamacare are all contributing to a sharp drop in estimates of how much will be spent on health care through the rest of this decade.
Click to expand...
That's the very first paragraph in the article.

...

The ACA, also known as Obamacare, began taking full effect in 2014, and is scheduled to be almost fully implemented in 2018, when the so-called Cadillac tax on pricy group health plans kicks in.

Much of the reductions in projected spending are "due to the recent recession, and a long period of slow income growth; the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs and Medicare policies related to the ACA," the report said. The study noted that national health spending since 2009 "has grown at historically low rates," which played a large part in the lowering of projected spending.
Click to expand...
Much of what this is saying is that it's more expensive to get health care at the same rates as we could seven years ago while stagnant wages exacerbate the issue of unaffordable healthcare. Oh, and the high deductible private health plans became the norm as a reaction to the changes put in place by the ACA. Yeah, that makes everything much more affordable. :rolleyes:
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Clown, nice try but you missed the point. Knuckledraggers never qualified their predictions of doom. They said the ACA would blow up healthcare as we know it, and explode costs. This dire prediction was regardless of recession, recovery, prosperity, or zombie apocalypse. Your side made these predictions, so you own it.

As the article correctly states, its tough to parse out the % of recession/slowdown vs ACA on reduced costs, although Kaiser put it at roughly 75/25. 25% of $2.5T in savings is $625 Billion. Not too shabby, and you'll also notice this quote at the end:

"The foundation said the new projections may "still be high" given the fact that premiums for health insurance plans offered through government-run Obamacare marketplaces are "much lower than experts originally thought they would be."

Read 'em and weep.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Uninsured rates just keep coming down...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102581345

Now, since the popular knuckledragger position is that current job growth is all part time jobs, which don't carry health care coverage with them, then the ACA MUST be the reason why more people are getting covered, correct?
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Rover said:
Uninsured rates just keep coming down...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102581345

Now, since the popular knuckledragger position is that current job growth is all part time jobs, which don't carry health care coverage with them, then the ACA MUST be the reason why more people are getting covered, correct?
Click to expand...

Even if we are seeing a little bump in pay to the lowest end of the spectrum middle class wages are stagnant and the middle class is carrying the water on Health Care.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

From 2013:

  • The average cost of a hospital delivery in America is $9,775, the highest in the world
  • In France, delivery costs $3,541, and in the UK it is just $2,641
  • Many industrialized countries offer flat fees for prenatal care and delivery, but in America, there is a separate charge for everything from a blood test to removing the placenta


Even insured women in the U.S. pay out-of-pocket costs of $3,400 on average, compared to little or nothing 20 years ago. The difference in the cost of pregnancy and delivery between the U.S. and other industrialized countries is staggering. In America, the average cost of a C-section delivery is $15,041, compared to $6,441 in France and just $4,435 in the United Kingdom. And while pregnancy and childbirth is less expensive in other countries, that's not to say it is any less comprehensive. Indeed, in Ireland, where women receive the same amount of high-tech maternity care as Americans, delivery is free at public hospitals. Women here can also opt to pay a fee for private deliveries.
Click to expand...
 
Priceless said:
From 2013:

  • The average cost of a hospital delivery in America is $9,775, the highest in the world
  • In France, delivery costs $3,541, and in the UK it is just $2,641
  • Many industrialized countries offer flat fees for prenatal care and delivery, but in America, there is a separate charge for everything from a blood test to removing the placenta
Click to expand...

I like the French model (about the only thing I do like about the French government). I think liability insurance and compliance is driving up our costs?

I was surprised how much it cost my kids to deliver my grandkids. It was free (or just about) when they were born. Now - over a grand. YIKES!
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

joecct said:
I like the French model (about the only thing I do like about the French government). I think liability insurance and compliance is driving up our costs?

I was surprised how much it cost my kids to deliver my grandkids. It was free (or just about) when they were born. Now - over a grand. YIKES!
Click to expand...

As I always say, for a $100 drug:

$1 for the materials, $1 for the profit, $98 for the potential lawsuit.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

FlagDUDE08 said:
As I always say, for a $100 drug:

$1 for the materials, $1 for the profit, $98 for the potential lawsuit.
Click to expand...

You're leaving out advertising. Have to let people know about that little blue pill that makes you stiff as a board for 4 hours.

In Europe you aren't allowed to advertise drugs.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

I would have zero issues banning advertising for drugs.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Priceless said:
You're leaving out advertising. Have to let people know about that little blue pill that makes you stiff as a board for 4 hours.

In Europe you aren't allowed to advertise drugs.
Click to expand...

True, plenty of money is spent on marketing, and it's not limited to drugs or commercial ads, either. Even PSAs will push medical stuff.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

FlagDUDE08 said:
True, plenty of money is spent on marketing, and it's not limited to drugs or commercial ads, either. Even PSAs will push medical stuff.
Click to expand...

One of the worst kept marketing secrets of big pharma is the practice of hiring young, attractive women as "sales reps" to drop off med samples and "free" lunch at doctor's offices. :p

Celebrity endorsements as well - Paula Dean was getting paid to hawk her diabetes meds, Phil Mickelson gets paid to talk up his arthritis meds, etc. It's a circus.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

dxmnkd316 said:
I would have zero issues banning advertising for drugs.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. The direct to consumer campaign in the media, advertising medications that only their doctor can write for them, is a major problem. They always show active attractive people having fun in life, doing all sorts of aerobic exercise. But listen carefully at the end as they roll through the side effects in that sweet voice monotone. And of course they should add, "ask your doctor if you suffer any of these side effects including death."
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
One of the worst kept marketing secrets of big pharma is the practice of hiring young, attractive women as "sales reps" to drop off med samples and "free" lunch at doctor's offices. :p
Click to expand...

Never was offered a free meal in 40 years of practice. Wouldn't have gone anyway, not because of any moral grounds, simply because why would I want to sit there with some drug rep for a sales pitch? Young, attractive women as sales reps? Bring them on:)!!! My wife Jenny always screened them out in the front office and i only got to see older guys in bad fitting suits:(. As far as dropping off samples-i know all the negatives brought up but most of my patient population were seniors who could often not afford their medications and the samples helped them on so many occasions. Also helped to allow them to try something before they filled a prescription that might not be helpful but would cost a fortune and was never returnable.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

DrDemento said:
Never was offered a free meal in 40 years of practice. Wouldn't have gone anyway, not because of any moral grounds, simply because why would I want to sit there with some drug rep for a sales pitch? Young, attractive women as sales reps? Bring them on:)!!! My wife Jenny always screened them out in the front office and i only got to see older guys in bad fitting suits:(. As far as dropping off samples-i know all the negatives brought up but most of my patient population were seniors who could often not afford their medications and the samples helped them on so many occasions. Also helped to allow them to try something before they filled a prescription that might not be helpful but would cost a fortune and was never returnable.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the samples are necessarily a bad thing - I've been given samples a couple of times when the doctor knows the med is name-brand with no generic equivalent, and will be a $40 co-pay.
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

DrDemento said:
Young, attractive women as sales reps? Bring them on:)!!! My wife Jenny always screened them out in the front office and i only got to see older guys in bad fitting suits:(. .
Click to expand...

No wonder you're crabby all the time. :D
 
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

The ever-moving hot woman hood ornament profession:

40s - 50s: secretaries
60s - 70s: stewardesses
80s - 90s: paralegals
00s - 10s: pharmaceutical sales reps
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top