Law Supreme Court rules government must pay billions to Obamacare insurers

[west42]

Neat, let's transfer more of our money to insurance giants. Thanks, Republicans.

And mandate it!

 

[James Bomb]

The report you just cited is from an advocacy group for universal healthcare, citing other left wing advocacy groups whichsuch as the American College of Physicians which "recommends implementing a single-payer or public option model to provide essential benefits and reduce administrative costs" https://www.acponline.org/advocacy/...0/acp-outlines-plan-for-universal-health-care

Well, you're not going to find a whole lot of physicians groups that are advocating for the current system of private insurance. In fact, you won't find a lot of groups outside of the insurance lobby and shitty, corrupt Republican think tanks that would argue that what we have now is good or sustainable.

Also, the article is well-sourced.

Also, this source also lumped in medicare administrative costs alongside the private sector: "Using the Medicare fee-for-service physician payment rules also offered the further advantage that study results could be generalized nationally and easily translated into policy and action."

No, you misunderstood. They normalized what is an administrative fee using Medicare rules, in order to compare apples to apples.

There was a recent study comparing administration costs between the US and Canada, which recently switched to a single payer system.

Whether it’s interpreting medical bills, struggling to get hospital records, or fighting with an insurance provider, Americans are accustomed to battling bureaucracy to access their health care. But patients’ time and effort are not the only price of this complexity. Administrative costs now make up about 34% of total health care expenditures in the United States—twice the percentage Canada spends, according to a new study published Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine.

These costs have increased over the last two decades, mostly due to the growth of private insurers’ overhead. The researchers examined 2017 costs and found that if the U.S. were to cut its administrative spending to match Canadian levels, the country could have saved more than $600 billion in just that one year.

The study also admits that "More recent studies have shown that in 2006–7 the rate of growth in resources dedicated to administration, 6.6 percent, 6 outpaced that of professional services and was comparable to the growth rate in hospital (7.5 percent) and prescription drug (6.7 percent) spending."

I literally quoted this part in my post. And the failure to hold down other costs outside of administrative costs isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the current system either.

So if you're trying to argue that administrative costs were already growing because of Medicare and because the industry was growing overall....ok? I guess?

I'm arguing that the complexity of a third-payer system and the fact that each individual patient can have different payment rules and procedures, and even different preferred formulations of the same medication is not worth the benefit that it's supposed to give Americans. Patients don't want to manage the complexity. Doctors don't want to manage the complexity. Most good hospitals don't want to manage the complexity either.

Also I hope you realize ACA regulation adds admin costs. It does not reduce them.

And most of that administrative cost increase went to private insurers in the marketplace and Medicare Advantage plans, both of which were heavily lobbied for by the insurance industry.

 

[blaseblah]

First off I'd like to know what the hell administrative costs (which weren't an issue prior to the ACA btw) have to do with a bs promise made by the Obama admin and a bunch of rinos back in 2014? The ACA already put an undue burden onto insurers with an assload of new regulations while democrats quietly snuck the public option out the back door, so what magic bullet are we missing here?

The Public option was nixed because of Lieberman.

 

[Darkballs]

Not surprised with the ruling, and if anyone is against it, you have the republican's to blame. They were the party that dismantled various portions of the ACA, but without replace language that provided insurers get federal funds for following the mandate.

So we paid out to insurers while still managing to lessen the quality of national healthcare during the time of a global pandemic.

MAGA.

 

[Madmick]

Neat, let's transfer more of our money to insurance giants. Thanks, Republicans.

Republicans opposed the ACA. Don't put this shit on Republicans.

 

[HockeyBjj]

A major hospital around me created a shitstorm by announcing they’ll no longer be accepting Medicaid or state backed insurance programs in 60 days because they hadn’t been getting paid by the government and with the Covid stuff blocking elective surgeries, they can no longer eat those losses

 

[Billy no mates]

Being saved from socialist death panels don't come cheap .

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

So when are republicans going to offer a replacement for obamacare? They been parroting the same crap about replacing it since like 10 years ago and still haven't done SHIT to fix it.

Wtf are you babbling about?
Trump promised he had a better program and he'd replace the ACA on day one.

Day one. He did this so long ago!

 

[Holic]

Well, you're not going to find a whole lot of physicians groups that are advocating for the current system of private insurance. In fact, you won't find a lot of groups outside of the insurance lobby and shitty, corrupt Republican think tanks that would argue that what we have now is good or sustainable.

Also, the article is well-sourced.

You can say the article is well sourced, but I've already proven its from an advocacy group sourcing other advocacy groups. And I don't care what the physician groups are advocating for. They're doctors, not insurance providers.

No, you misunderstood. They normalized what is an administrative fee using Medicare rules, in order to compare apples to apples.

So then the administrative costs were based on the medicare system and not private spending, which proves my point.

There was a recent study comparing administration costs between the US and Canada, which recently switched to a single payer system.

Whether it’s interpreting medical bills, struggling to get hospital records, or fighting with an insurance provider, Americans are accustomed to battling bureaucracy to access their health care. But patients’ time and effort are not the only price of this complexity. Administrative costs now make up about 34% of total health care expenditures in the United States—twice the percentage Canada spends, according to a new study published Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine.

These costs have increased over the last two decades, mostly due to the growth of private insurers’ overhead. The researchers examined 2017 costs and found that if the U.S. were to cut its administrative spending to match Canadian levels, the country could have saved more than $600 billion in just that one year.


I literally quoted this part in my post. And the failure to hold down other costs outside of administrative costs isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the current system either.

Rofl Canada's healthcare all but requires its citizens to travel to the US for anything resembling decent and timely care, and that's with half the population the US has. And failure to hold down costs is kind of ok when you're stuffing in a bigger population and still leading the pack in terms of hospital survival and medical advancements.

I'm arguing that the complexity of a third-payer system and the fact that each individual patient can have different payment rules and procedures, and even different preferred formulations of the same medication is not worth the benefit that it's supposed to give Americans. Patients don't want to manage the complexity. Doctors don't want to manage the complexity. Most good hospitals don't want to manage the complexity either.

Nor do they want even longer wait times, a decrease in healthcare quality, or government arbitration to decide whether their kids live or die. Of course your advocacy "studies" won't mention that stuff

And most of that administrative cost increase went to private insurers in the marketplace and Medicare Advantage plans, both of which were heavily lobbied for by the insurance industry.

Yes, because the ACA REQUIRED that plans participating in the marketplace and medicare advantage would meet the government admin standard.

 

[Holic]

Not surprised with the ruling, and if anyone is against it, you have the republican's to blame. They were the party that dismantled various portions of the ACA, but without replace language that provided insurers get federal funds for following the mandate.

So we paid out to insurers while still managing to lessen the quality of national healthcare during the time of a global pandemic.

MAGA.

Nice try, but Obama is the one who signed off on the change.

 

[Holic]

The Public option was nixed because of Lieberman.

Yes. A democrat. And democrats voted to nix it.

 

[Falsedawn]

So when are republicans going to offer a replacement for obamacare? They been parroting the same crap about replacing it since like 10 years ago and still haven't done SHIT to fix it.

They already did, it's called HUADA.

Hurry up and die already.

 

[James Bomb]

You can say the article is well sourced, but I've already proven its from an advocacy group sourcing other advocacy groups. And I don't care what the physician groups are advocating for. They're doctors, not insurance providers.

Lol, "doctors, not insurance providers..." So the people who actually provide the key service shouldn't be listened to, while the middlemen should?

So then the administrative costs were based on the medicare system and not private spending, which proves my point.

Nope, it just classified the cost of administrative vs clinical tasks using the same criteria. Again, it's to avoid apples to oranges comparisons for costs. That way you avoid classifying the same activity differently just because the provider is different.

Rofl Canada's healthcare all but requires its citizens to travel to the US for anything resembling decent and timely care, and that's with half the population the US has. And failure to hold down costs is kind of ok when you're stuffing in a bigger population and still leading the pack in terms of hospital survival and medical advancements.

This is a load of bullshit. I already linked to a study (and can link to more) that indicates that actual medical outcomes in the US system are worse because of the legacy private insurance system, not even counting the added benefit of an infusion of capital from the cost and efficiency savings. You're actually trying to argue that Jerry Jones getting his hip surgery faster somehow makes up for the thousands of people who unnecessarily suffer and die because of a broken system that actually encourages waste while still not even coming close to covering the whole population? Yay for medical bankruptcies, chronic obesity, and preventable death! USA USA!

Nor do they want even longer wait times, a decrease in healthcare quality, or government arbitration to decide whether their kids live or die. Of course your advocacy "studies" won't mention that stuff

None of this stuff is actually true. Do you work for the insurance industry? You seem like that sort of person.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...7-international-comparison-reflects-flaws-and


Note that this was measured before Canada switched to single payer in 2017.

Yes, because the ACA REQUIRED that plans participating in the marketplace and medicare advantage would meet the government admin standard.

There is nothing wrong with requiring private companies to participate in controls against fraud.

 

[HomeCheese]

A major hospital around me created a shitstorm by announcing they’ll no longer be accepting Medicaid or state backed insurance programs in 60 days because they hadn’t been getting paid by the government and with the Covid stuff blocking elective surgeries, they can no longer eat those losses

I believe Medicaid is largely a state issue with the majority of money coming from within a state. It's bullshit what the gov doesn't pay what they owe in a timely fashion.

 

[ShadowRun]

Thanks Obama

 

[Holic]

Lol, "doctors, not insurance providers..." So the people who actually provide the key service shouldn't be listened to, while the middlemen should?

The people who are actually paying for the shit should be listened to. And in the case of insurance claims, that's the insurer.

Nope, it just classified the cost of administrative vs clinical tasks using the same criteria. Again, it's to avoid apples to oranges comparisons for costs. That way you avoid classifying the same activity differently just because the provider is different.

But the provider isn't "just different". The difference in admin costs between the government and private industries was the first thing you cited. Now you're saying it should be classified in the same way so we can advocate for single payer. It's dishonest as fuck.

This is a load of bullshit. I already linked to a study (and can link to more) that indicates that actual medical outcomes in the US system are worse because of the legacy private insurance system, not even counting the added benefit of an infusion of capital from the cost and efficiency savings. You're actually trying to argue that Jerry Jones getting his hip surgery faster somehow makes up for the thousands of people who unnecessarily suffer and die because of a broken system that actually encourages waste while still not even coming close to covering the whole population? Yay for medical bankruptcies, chronic obesity, and preventable death! USA USA!

I am arguing that you are almost half as likely to die in a US hospital than in a UK hospital, and you are less likely to die in a US hospital than a hospital in literally any other country. You can call it bullshit and get upset at American nationalism all you want, facts are facts.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/death-rate-much-higher-in-english-than-us-hospitals/

None of this stuff is actually true. Do you work for the insurance industry? You seem like that sort of person.

I own a small insurance firm that provides cash benefits for anyone who throws their back out while banging a communist in the ass. Don't worry about me. Who I am isn't part of this debate.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...7-international-comparison-reflects-flaws-and

This is a link to another advocacy org "study" that uses its own surveys and the WHO as sources.

In addition to the surveys, other standardized comparative data were drawn from the most recent reports of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Our study included data from the OECD on screening, immunization, preventable hospital admissions, population health, and disease-specific outcomes. The WHO and European Observatory data were used to measure population health.

There is nothing wrong with requiring private companies to participate in controls against fraud.

There is if you're going to use it as an excuse to pile on even more regulation due to the cost of providing the controls.

 

[James Bomb]

The people who are actually paying for the shit should be listened to. And in the case of insurance claims, that's the insurer.

Everybody pays for healthcare, directly or indirectly. Insurance companies just burn a lot of the revenue that passes through them on things that don't actually improve anybody's health.

But the provider isn't "just different". The difference in admin costs between the government and private industries was the first thing you cited. Now you're saying it should be classified in the same way so we can advocate for single payer. It's dishonest as fuck.

Dude, why is this so hard for you to understand? All the study did was normalize the same procedures/tasks to count as either administrative or clinical, using the same criteria, which happened to be the Medicare criteria. So a doctor updating a patient's blood pressure in their EHR would be clinical for each type of insurance, and figuring out which brand of cardiac stent would be covered by the provider is also marked as administrative for both populations of expenses. This is basic design of a study to remove extra variables.

I am arguing that you are almost half as likely to die in a US hospital than in a UK hospital, and you are less likely to die in a US hospital than a hospital in literally any other country. You can call it bullshit and get upset at American nationalism all you want, facts are facts.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/death-rate-much-higher-in-english-than-us-hospitals/

So wait, you're posting a tabloid article that references a non-peer reviewed "study" by a single professor in the UK as some sort of proof that you're right? The guy is actually trying to sell a methodology around hospital mortality rates to the NHS, with not a lot of success. The guy's own hospital published a study contradicting his results

Peterson and KFF, as well as the OECD have some actually published data on health outcomes for the US vs comparable nations, and the results for the US system are not good.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/dashboard/#quality

I own a small insurance firm that provides cash benefits for anyone who throws their back out while banging a communist in the ass. Don't worry about me. Who I am isn't part of this debate.

So you run a small AFLAC competitor, and you think that's not a conflict of interest?

This is a link to another advocacy org "study" that uses its own surveys and the WHO as sources.

Yes, it may be hard to believe, but the WHO and OECD do collect a lot of information on global health, since it's part of the reason why they exist.

There is if you're going to use it as an excuse to pile on even more regulation due to the cost of providing the controls.

I would be pretty embarrassed if I worked in an industry and understood very little about how it actually works.

 

[Holic]

Everybody pays for healthcare, directly or indirectly. Insurance companies just burn a lot of the revenue that passes through them on things that don't actually improve anybody's health.

And the government of course is well known for obtaining and spending their money with only the utmost efficiency, rofl.

Dude, why is this so hard for you to understand? All the study did was normalize the same procedures/tasks to count as either administrative or clinical, using the same criteria, which happened to be the Medicare criteria. So a doctor updating a patient's blood pressure in their EHR would be clinical for each type of insurance, and figuring out which brand of cardiac stent would be covered by the provider is also marked as administrative for both populations of expenses. This is basic design of a study to remove extra variables.

Oh it just HAPPENED to be the medicare criteria, even though the cost for a solid private provider could easily be less in thousands of cases. You can keep restating the same point all day, it won't change the fact that medicare criteria is being used to criticize admin costs for private companies.

So wait, you're posting a tabloid article that references a non-peer reviewed "study" by a single professor in the UK as some sort of proof that you're right? The guy is actually trying to sell a methodology around hospital mortality rates to the NHS, with not a lot of success. The guy's own hospital published a study contradicting his results

Peterson and KFF, as well as the OECD have some actually published data on health outcomes for the US vs comparable nations, and the results for the US system are not good.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/dashboard/#quality

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/dashboard/#quality

More single payer propaganda bs. Your health system tracker "results" are a bunch of blather about access and affordability, with a bunch of unrelated nonsense like teen pregnancy rates thrown in to fudge the issue. I'm talking about quality of actual care, and the article you mentioned doesn't refute the actual numbers of what I said (also I find it hilarious that you call it a tabloid article and then go on to link another article refuting the actual study I was talking about. If it's a tabloid, why did they bother refuting it?). Your article says that the same hospital performed an additional study with "experienced doctors" (doesn't say how many) who judged that the deaths I cited were mostly unavoidable. Gosh, I wonder if they had a conflict of interest in being honest about the nature of those deaths?

So you run a small AFLAC competitor, and you think that's not a conflict of interest?

Oh NICE!!! I was hoping I'd catch you on that one. Everybody, look here ^^^^ This is how you recognize when you're arguing with a commie bot.

Yes, it may be hard to believe, but the WHO and OECD do collect a lot of information on global health, since it's part of the reason why they exist.

Well the other part is to promote a communist agenda soooo....yeah.

I would be pretty embarrassed if I worked in an industry and understood very little about how it actually works.

And yet here you are.

 

[woodguyatl]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Health_Care_Act_of_2017

So they lost this one and then said “fuck it” and didn’t try again why they controlled everything and haven’t proposed anything else. So, basically, they’ve conceded that we will stick with what we have.

 

[Holic]

So they lost this one and then said “fuck it” and didn’t try again why they controlled everything and haven’t proposed anything else. So, basically, they’ve conceded that we will stick with what we have.

For the length of John McCain's lifespan at least, yes.