Health Care might just help Obama in election, afterall

[InRareForm]

http://www.economist.com/node/215637...ltimateedition

[boutons_deux]

STUDY: Medicaid Expansion Would Save Arizona $1.2 Billion And Create Over 20,000 Jobs

The report’s author, Dave Wells, the Grand Canyon Ins ute’s Research Director, noted that “by increasing Medicaid coverage to 133 percent of the federal poverty line, the state would reap huge economic benefits. Compared to current policy, it would add 21,000 jobs compared to 15,000 jobs created by following 100 percent of the federal poverty line. The 21,000 jobs would reduce the state’s unemployment rate by 0.7 percent, and increase economic growth in the state during the first year of full implementation by nearly 1 percent.” [...]

George Cunningham, chair of the Grand Canyon Ins ute, explained, “The payback on the state investment in expanding Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty line is 5 to 1; more than $5 will come into Arizona from the Federal government for every dollar Arizona expends. You can’t beat that return on investment.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...er-20000-jobs/

[boutons_deux]

POLL: Obama Has Double Digit Lead On Health Policy Issues



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...policy-issues/

[boutons_deux]

Romney’s Approach To Medicare Reform Will Lead To Higher Costs, Study Finds

The debate around premium support misses the potential within Medicare’s existing structure to harness the market to promote efficiency and to do so on terms that do not put beneficiaries at risk for escalating costs…By design, MA plans have been paid above per capita costs for equivalent beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, and have used these payments to provide extra benefits that have successfully attracted more than a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries into private health plans.

Measures taken by the Affordable Care Act significantly reduce these extra payments. But they do not eliminate the long-standing bias favoring payment policies designed to attract private plans rather than to encourage lower costs. Our analysis of recent MA experience shows that most private plans are more, not less, costly than traditional Medicare. In fact, MA plans with the lowest costs have been found to serve only 10 percent of MA enrollees, despite their attractiveness in the current market, and they do not reflect the typical MA experience. Only in the highest cost areas for traditional Medicare do typical MA plans deliver care at lower costs than the public program. Even this difference is likely exaggerated, given continuing evidence of favorable risk selection (that is, disproportionate enrollment of low cost enrollees) in private plans. In short, overpayment, not lower costs, drives most of MA plans’ success in competing with the public program for enrollees.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...edicare-costs/

[Viva Las Espuelas]

CBO already has it rated as costing twice as much as of now.

[boutons_deux]

CBO?

It's a vast-left-wing conspiracy!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

CBO already has it rated as costing twice as much as of now.

Really in July the CBO stated that after the SCOTUS the cost would go down:

What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions Taking Into Account the Supreme Court’s Decision?

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion. (Those figures do not include the budgetary impact of other provisions of the ACA, which in the aggregate reduce budget deficits.)

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period (see Table 1, following the text).3

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

I looked through the CBO reports for the last two years and could find nothing of what you say. Been watching Fox News again?

[TeyshaBlue]

Really in July the CBO stated that after the SCOTUS the cost would go down:



http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472



http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

I looked through the CBO reports for the last two years and could find nothing of what you say. Been watching Fox News again?

Meh. The CBO modifies their estimates frequently, which is actually one of the things I really like about them. I'll wait and see how it actually washes out. In local news, my premium is projected to increase $70/mo for less coverage next enrollment period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Meh. The CBO modifies their estimates frequently, which is actually one of the things I really like about them. I'll wait and see how it actually washes out. In local news, my premium is projected to increase $70/mo for less coverage next enrollment period.

I agree completely but I would assert that their estimates are a pretty good baseline to start off with on policy proposals. The differences they stated were small though. $50b out of $1.1T is a 4.5% shift.

My point was that they didn't say what VLE claimed that they said it was going to cost double. Specifically:

CBO already has it rated as costing twice as much as of now.

And that sucks. The underwriters send you anything as to give cause? That's one thing I like about P&C the states require the underwriters to justify the they do.

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree completely but I would assert that their estimates are a pretty good baseline to start off with on policy proposals. The differences they stated were small though. $50b out of $1.1T is a 4.5% shift.

My point was that they didn't say what VLE claimed that they said it was going to cost double. Specifically:



And that sucks. The underwriters send you anything as to give cause? That's one thing I like about P&C the states require the underwriters to justify the they do.

Nah. Just got an email from our HR Drone.