This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?

Tyler Durden's picture


Following the rather stunning shenanigans of Q1 GDP with regard healthcare spending (as we detailed here), we thought, four years after its passage in 2010, it worth analyzing Obamacare's economic impact? Beforehand, economists generally believed that the broader coverage would raise the demand for healthcare goods and services, although there was some disagreement about related effects on healthcare inflation. In reality, as UBS notes, there was too much optimism about a positive immediate economic impact and a negative price inflation effect.


Via UBS' Maury Harris,

Statisticians at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) initially were far too optimistic about what expanded healthcare coverage would immediately mean for U.S. economic activity. When calculating their first estimate of Q1(14) real GDP growth at the end of April, the BEA assumed a 9.1% annualized rate of increase in healthcare services consumption—one-ninth of overall real GDP. However, with more complete information, the BEA now reports a 1.4% decline in such spending. That was enough to trim 1.2 percentage points from earlier estimated annual real GDP growth. According to the BEA,

"The revision to health care services reflected the incorporation of newly available Census Bureau quarterly services survey (QSS) data for the first quarter. The QSS data reflect the revenues for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, physician offices, nursing homes, and other health care providers and the expenses of nonprofit hospitals and other nonprofit health care providers. Prior to receiving the Census QSS data, BEA used information on Medicaid benefits and on ACA insurance exchange enrollments to prepare the previously published estimates of health services."

Does American public see any effects from ACA?

Considering government statisticians' struggles in trying to measure what the ACA is doing to the economy, it is useful to ask if the American public thinks it is making much difference in their lives. A Gallup poll conducted on May 21-25 asked the following question: "As you may know, a few of the provisions of the healthcare law have already gone into effect. So far, has the new law helped you and your family, not had an effect, or has it hurt you and your family?" 14% felt it was helpful, a larger 24% responded that it was not helpful, and 59% cited no effect.

A subsequent Bloomberg National Poll on June 6-9 asked a somewhat similar question: "Since the healthcare law went into effect on January 1st of this year, have you experienced a big change, a little change, or no real change in your health care?" A big change was reported by 24% of respondents, little change was reported by 15% of the respondents, and no real change was cited by 60% of the respondents.

While the ACA implementation has not yet made much difference for most Americans, has it influenced their sense of longer-term security—one key to longer-term saving trends? From a behavioral perspective, more secure households should save less and less secure households should save more. The May 21-25 Gallup poll asked this question: "In the long run, how do you think the healthcare law will affect your family's healthcare situation? Will it make things better, not make much difference, or will it make things worse?" 36% responded "worse" versus 22% responding "better".

So far at least, the ACA does not appear to be a longer-term net confidence booster.

Earlier sharp slowdown in healthcare inflation was unsustainable

In addition to consumption and confidence impacts, the ACA potentially influences healthcare costs. The slowdown until recently in the y/y change in the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) chain price index inflation was partly attributable to slower healthcare inflation. Economists debated whether the ACA should receive any of the credit, with doubters citing earlier instances where healthcare inflation slowed only to subsequently pick up.

Over the three months through May, healthcare goods and services prices accounted for around 43% of the 40 basis point re-acceleration of core PCE price inflation.

With the y/y change in the hourly employment cost index (ECI) for hospital workers up 1.7% in Q1(14), it is hard to see labor-intensive healthcare services prices rising by much less for any sustained period.

*  *  *

In summary - Yes, Obamacare is bad for the US economy

But apart from massive over-optimism, and negative impacts on confidence and consumption; we are sure the voting public will get behind the man who instigated all of this...


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:30 | 4905424 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Given that growth in the conventional sense is over, is this not then a rhetorical question?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:32 | 4905426 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

I told you guys in 2012:

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:58 | 4905470 knukles
knukles's picture

All that money spent by PhlemObamaCare on everything BUT medical costs..

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:59 | 4905473 Shocker
Shocker's picture

Take a min and look at all the Layoffs in the Hospital / Health Sector.

That should help answer the question

Layoff list:


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 16:33 | 4905804 Cthonic
Cthonic's picture

A number of states refused to expand medicaid, which in turn hampers their hospitals' access to federal gov't 'disproportionate share hospital program' funds in those states.  Those funds are used to offset some of the costs of treating indigent patients.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:24 | 4905871 monkeyshine
monkeyshine's picture

All those stories about $6000-$8000 deductible plans... did economists really think that raising the direct costs healthcare consumers pay was going to increase demand for healthcare?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:26 | 4905988 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I'm not sure what would increase demand anyway, since virtually everyone that wanted or needed it could already get it...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:39 | 4906885 MontgomeryScott
MontgomeryScott's picture


Having to pay double for shitty healthcare and having to be entered into a database that cross-refrences such things as 'gun ownership' (as well as your personal DNA) tends to make the populace more suceptable to stress-related issues, so YES, in that sense, the demand for 'healthcare' will increase.


Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

SERVICES produce virtually NOTHING, and only CONSUME money and time. Governments, insurance companies, and banks are much the same in this sense (as if there is any difference between these entities).

The engine that drives so-called 'economic growth' is PRODUCTION of GOODS. The MIC knows this all too well (hence the never-ending war on the emotion called 'terrrr'err'). The government contracts and spending on the militarization of the police in the CONUS through 'block grants' by the DHS are CERTAINLY 'growing' the 'economy' (at least in the minds of the 'government' that forces the average people who produce goods to yield a large and increasing part of their salaries under threat of prison in order to pay for the imprisonment of the entire nation. THIS INCLUDES the OBAMACARE mandates, which are enforced by... wait for it... THE I.R.S.).

SIGN UP, OR BE TAXED. EITHER WAY, YOU WILL PAY. Now, THAT'S 'bullish', isn't it?

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:48 | 4906895 Richard Chesler
Richard Chesler's picture

Anything Obongo touches turns to shit.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:35 | 4906102 SDShack
SDShack's picture

The so called Medicaid Expansion is nothing but a ruse. It provides incentives UP FRONT for states to particpate, but those incentives disappear as the years go by, to the extent that the states are worse off in the long run. More Medicaid enrollees, with lower and lower Federal Payback. That's the reason why so many states refused to particpate. They understood the economics are bad long term for the state. Those that did particpate, were usually already in financial difficulty and needed the extra juice from the Feds to pad their own state deficits NOW, and don't care about what happens in the future. It's HC Cash for Clunkers. 0zer0care is just one big clusterfuck that is going to absolutely destroy the economy beginning 4Q2014, and will be apparent to everyone in the first half of 2015. The train is out of control, picking up speed to about 80mph, and about to reach a 40mph turn. Nothing can stop what is going to happen. Prepare accordingly.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 00:26 | 4906513 BeanusCountus
BeanusCountus's picture

Really believe everyone is missing the point. Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance of any kind, it doesnt matter. Healthcare spending is a drain on GDP. It reduces discretionary spending. Period.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:02 | 4905477 remain calm
remain calm's picture

Maybe so, but the Oboma phone was very stimulating for the economy.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:05 | 4905483 knukles
knukles's picture

To be carried down the front of tightie whities, set on vibrate, programmed to call itself constantly.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:26 | 4905505 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

We know Obummercare is destructive and all the other things that have been foisted upon us will continue to unravel.

This is kinda off topic but worth a look.

This judge is a Clinton appointee, but seems to understand equal justice under the law.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:47 | 4905530 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

'Justice' and 'law' are some mighty big words. Fuck if either of 'em ever existed in the centralized sense we hold them to be 'true' today.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:59 | 4905554 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

Unfortunately, when corruption is the norm, legal sensibilities get trashed. As the .gov has grown and become more entrenched in every aspect of daily life, we become more jaded.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:30 | 4905585 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

It's not the ever-increasing gubbamin influence that turns you jaded, but rather the apathy from all of your fellow planeteers.

In my opinion, it is the complete and utter lack of understanding of the heirarchy of 'law' that leads to enslavement.

Natural Law (god's law) reigns supreme. It carries, with appropriate weights, all components of man's psyche: compassion, perseverance, duty, mercy, vengeance... even 'justice,' in its most sacred form of settling scores. It is the only law a man ever needs, and it is the only law that comes built-in, as the result of millennia of evolution and knowledge passed.

Constitutional Law is at best an attempt at the preservation of Natural Law with some conditions.

'Legal' or modern law based on penal codes... well...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:01 | 4905611 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

No argument with Natural Law, it is written on man's heart. Unfortunately TPTB now this and corrupt the teaching from a very early age. It has taken 230 years to get us here and the downhill run is increasing in speed exponentially. Look out below...

You're right on about planeteers, most argue for their limitations and they own them once the arguement is done.

The last several years have led me to really ramp up my self reliance and ability to weather some form of socio-economic turbulence. Although, I think woar is going to be the trigger for economic collapse and with it implementation of a militarized NWO and .gov. Sure hope I'm wrong.

A return to an understanding of Natural Law as a guiding influence will be but a pipe dream until it becomes a necessity.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 20:23 | 4906178 RichardParker
RichardParker's picture


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 20:26 | 4906182 RichardParker
RichardParker's picture

"Unfortunately, when corruption is the norm, legal sensibilities get trashed. As the .gov has grown and become more entrenched in every aspect of daily life, we become more jaded."

I posted this before.  However it is relevant.

Here are some highlights from:

Cost of obamacare; lied

Promised to put obamacare negotiations on c-span; lied

If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan; lied

If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor; lied

Refused to fire or prosecute 15 IRS agents who illegally seized the medical records of 60 million people

Hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare
Too bad he didn't use the money to hire more healthcare workers at the VA. LOL

Illegally bypassed Congress to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate

Paid $67 million to so-called “volunteers”

Members of Congress and their staff are exempt from the income limits for Obamacare subsidies that apply to everyone else

How many millions of people lost their employee sponsored health insurance?
How many millions of people had their hours cut because of obamacare?
How many millions of people are being were forced to buy shitty policies that cost way more out of pocket than their employee sponsored plan and cover far less?

Here are some more tidbits
Obamacare requires some people to pay 19% of their income for premiums

Under certain circumstances, Obamacare recipients between the ages of 55 and 64 can have their homes seized by the government after they die

All of this is taken from:

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:02 | 4905555 ugmug
ugmug's picture

I'm stuck in an Obamacare socialized medical clinic.

With the digital medical records doctors do not see any actual patients.

My doctor before Obamacare ran off to another state that had lower malpractice insurance costs.

I have yet to actually see my new doctor. I've seen nurse practitioners, residents, so called trained medical puppets, but I have yet to actually see my primary doctor.

I now seldom go to my "doctor" and wait until my pharmacy tells me I have to see a "doctor" to renew my prescriptions.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 16:06 | 4905751 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Family friends' kid (my age) just finished up medical skool and got his first job. 45K. On call 24/7. Property of the State.

What the fuck...?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:44 | 4906022 RichardP
RichardP's picture

In the U.S., one may obtain either a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O) degree upon graduating from an accredited medical school.  But one with such a degree may practice medicine only after they complete a residency program.  The length of these programs range from 3 - 8 years, depending upon the specialty.

So - if your friend's kid just graduated med school and is on-call 24/7, I'm guessing he is in the first year of his residency program.  Residency programs act as gatekeepers by being rough on their participants - so as to weed out all but the most hardy.

Your friends' son is not property of the State.  But his medical license is.  I agree that, before the State grants him a license to practice medicine,  he should be required to prove to the State that he knows his stuff.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:37 | 4906004 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

What are you talking about?  What exactly is it that you believe changed with your clinic after obamacare?  All of the metallic "obamacare" plans pretty much pick up the torch where it left off... 

If you go to a clinic where you don't see a doctor and other people do all the work, then go to a different clinic...  you go to a shitty provider.  The insurance payments are still flowing to medical professionals and they're happy to see patients.  You're crying wolf too soon.  (it's coming, but not here yet).

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:54 | 4906044 RichardP
RichardP's picture

What exactly is it that you believe changed with your clinic after obamacare?

Metallic plans generally pay less than non-metallic plans.  So providers are inclined to not participate in the metallic plans.  But if they choose to not participate, and they see a metallic patient, the metallic plans send payments to the patient, not the doctor.  And the patients generally don't pass that payment on to the doctor; they keep it.

So - a "punt" if you will is for the doctor to participate in the metallic plans and hire physician's assistants and/or nurse practitioners and pay them a salary to see the metallic patients.  The doctor can still bill in his name, and get paid in his name, and pay part of what he gets as salary to his helper(s).  He gets to keep the rest for himself (which may be a negative number if the total metallic payment does not cover the cost of his NP or PA).

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 00:58 | 4906546 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The credentialing/contract between the insurance company and the provider is the same or very similar, regardless whether metallic.  What you're describing is the same process for all providers who choose to be out of network (a process that is increasing due to cuts across the board and was happening prior to obamacare).  If you're going to a provider that has non doctors providing these services, then you're going to a mcdonalds of the medical industry, e.g. a factory/hospital/huge gp center.  Again, my suggestion is to find a different provider.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 16:48 | 4907771 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Again, my suggestion is to find a different provider.

I have no problem with that suggestion.

What you're describing is the same process for all providers who choose to be out of network.

What I am describing is a doctor, mine, who is in network for non-metallic plans and out of network for metallic plans.  Blue Cross sends the payment to him for non-metallic patients.  Blue Cross sends payment for metallic patients to the patients, not him - because he chose to not participate in the metallic plans.  This is for California.  Insurance rules are set at the state level, so your mileage may vary.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:09 | 4906856 drstrangelove73
drstrangelove73's picture

You are wrong ,my friend.My clinic takes Medicare and Medicaid but we don't take Obamacare.The reimbursement is below Medicaid and the claims experience has been horrible.They don't pay.The program is screwed up.Medicaid pays below costs and Obamacare is worse.You are getting your information from the wrong sources.I've been in business in the same location for 30 years-believe me,I know how this works.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:18 | 4907012 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

What the fuck are you talking about?  There is no obamacare insurance policy...  The insurance policies are provided by the same players that there always were, e.g. blue cross, aetna, cigna, etc.  When you say you don't take obamacare, that means you don't take private insurance?  So you're trying to tell us that universally, private health insurance doesn't reimburse you as much for the same services?  Nonsense...

The reason why medical practitioners don't like private insurance is that it won't pay for bullshit ancillary services (the ancillary services that large providers, e.g. hospitals, need to make a spread on, e.g. paying for minimum wage orderlies to jerk off) or some of the unnecessary procedures that medical practitioners like to blame on fear of lawsuit.  Further, there are issues with collection given deductibles with many private insurance policies, but this has nothing to do with reimbursement rates.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 17:16 | 4907819 RichardP
RichardP's picture

When you say you don't take obamacare, that means you don't take private insurance?


A given health insurance company has a myriad of health insurance products.  Each is priced differently from the other, and each pays a different amount for the same health service or procedure.

Lets say you have Blue Cross and I have Blue Cross.  That will mean nothing to the doctor.  He will want to know what Blue Cross plan you have, and what Blue Cross plan I have - because they are all different, and they all pay him a different amount for the same service or procedure.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA - Obamacare) encourages states to establish health-care exchanges.  Health Insurance carriers are not required to offer products through the exchange.  But if they do, the products offered through the exchange must meet certain requirements related to one of these four categories: Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum (hence, the term metallic or metal plans).  These metal plans are what are being referred to when someone talks about doctors not taking Obamacare.  As I've noted upthread, a doctor may choose to participate in non-exchange health insurance plans (non-metallic plans) and to not participate in exchange plans (metallic plans).  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows for the purchaser of health insurance to get a government tax credit for part of the purchase price of their health insurance.  But this tax credit is only available on plans purchased through the exchanges - the metallic plans.  No tax credit is available on any health insurance plans purchased outside of the exchanges.

Read through the first few paragraphs of the summary on Page 2 of this link:

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:43 | 4906016 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

I haven't made much money in the past few years. I was stuck in a state socialized clinic to treat a serious but curable disease. There were no "doctors". A nurse parctitioner was treating my disease. This is what the future of healthcare will be in this country. 


My state took the Medicaid expansion, nd I qualified. Medicaid pays for EVERYTHING, and depending on your carrier, as long as you stay in network, they spare no expense. It's actually quite disgusting. I even get some OTC medications free of charge. 


So, I went to a real GI specialist practice, and they are going to take care of everything. There is no possible way that this system could ever exist on a large scale. 


Personally, I consider it relcaiming  stolen property for all the taxes that I have paid and the 3 years of my life that they took from me for commiting a victimless, non-violent crime.


Fuck the state. I will take everything they are handing out, and I will enjoy watching their system crash and burn.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:56 | 4906050 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I try to explain this to people and they don't listen...  socialized healthcare often provides better serivce than top shelf private insurance.  The weirdest part is that patients who have medicaid will complain to no end that they're being provided substandard services because they're medicaid patients...  no, actually you're getting about 35 unnecessary ancillary services because the medical provider can bill the government for them and the auditors are likely to do nothing, e.g. paying someone to drive you to the gas station to buy a drink.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:12 | 4906439 Omegaman2211
Omegaman2211's picture

No dipshit, they don't bill the government. They bill ALL OF US FUCKING TAXPAYERS.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 00:51 | 4906534 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

that wooshing noise is the point of my post going past your head...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 04:27 | 4906660 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Nevertheless, two-tier (or more!) medicine is coming:  Obamacare for the Plebes, and Concierge Practices for those that can afford it.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:41 | 4906951 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Already here and been going strong for quite a while.  However, the bifurcated system only lasts so long as present pricing structures are in place.  Eventually, the medical factories' fixed costs kill them and we get some semblance of price discovery.  The folks who didn't sell out to the large players and who have no debt are going to be able to weather a helluva storm and will get to pick up some healthy scraps during the transition. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:11 | 4906435 Omegaman2211
Omegaman2211's picture

The existence of government is bad for economic growth.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 06:37 | 4906729 doctor10
doctor10's picture

"ObamaCare is simpley the other side of the coin of the bank bailouts that started in 2008.The coincidence of the QE taper with the implementation of Obamacare-which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court assures us all is a "tax"-is too obvious to ignore.

The QE "taper" is simply being replaced by higher insurance premiums paid directly by Americans to insurance companies.  Somebodies in DC decided this was more durable, more permanent, and an easier sell as "health insurance".

At the end of the day, whatver you call the payments, Americans en masss are being held hostage to the quadrillion of unstable debt derivatives-a financial terrorism far more dealy than creation of "Al Queda"

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:32 | 4905432 Escrava Isaura
Escrava Isaura's picture

In summary - Yes, Obamacare is bad for the US economy


Obamacare is bad for consumers.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:44 | 4905454 More_sellers_th...
More_sellers_than_buyers's picture

It's great for the economy if you want a centralized soviet state with complete and total contol over all.  Really?  Does someone even have to ask this question? I thought I clicked on USATODAY instead of Zero

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:43 | 4905524 Cruel Aid
Cruel Aid's picture

initially anyway

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:47 | 4905457 phoolish
phoolish's picture

What a phrigg'in laugh.  Of course ANY extra 'income' went straight to increased costs.  Duh.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:48 | 4905461 news printer
news printer's picture

Only in America:

Costly prisoner release screw-up worse than first thought: 873 inmates erroneously received reduced sentences

Nebraska’s prison screw-up is much bigger than originally estimated: 873 inmates erroneously received reduced sentences over the past 20 years, state officials revealed Friday.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 04:29 | 4906661 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

How many of those 873 are doing crime sprees?  If the answer is zero, then "What difference does it make?"

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:49 | 4905464 stinkhammer
stinkhammer's picture

choomwagon care for everyone

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:50 | 4905465 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

"Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?"

Obamacare is additional theft by government for the benefit of the insurance companies and the criminals of government.

So the answer is a resounding yes.

But then I did see a bear shitting in the woods this morning and that might have made me biased.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:03 | 4905474 knukles
knukles's picture

The pope quit wearing little red shoes, too.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:14 | 4905476 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

I still want to know how the economy contracts at a 3% annualized rate with no ill-effects on employment or government revenue. Something does not add up. Seriously - no snark, WTF?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:42 | 4906014 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Because everyone works for the government...  there is no employment proper and government revenue is a mobius strip.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:01 | 4905478 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Did Nancy get held by a Mexican Drug cartel?  Pass the ransom bill before you read it. Bail me out. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:03 | 4905480 kill switch
kill switch's picture



Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?

I'll give you three guesses..


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:03 | 4905481 Reaper
Reaper's picture

More Medicaid recipients, which is part of Obamacare, might have meant more government spending for their medical care, but doctors don't like the reduced payments and haven't worked longer to earn more from Medicaid. The effect is an increased waiting time for Medicaid patients, because the amount of service provided is not increasing in portion to the number of new enrollees. Another set of losers from Obamacare is the prior Medicaid recipients.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:06 | 4905489 Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture
Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?


You are only now asking this? How long have you been living under a very large rock?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:11 | 4905492 Number 156
Number 156's picture

Look at CPI. Its been 'fixed' by removing the least favorable elements.

The BEA can fix this data too in due time. I cant help it but ignore anything coming out of any goverment office, good or bad.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:09 | 4905495 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture

Apologies for OT but check out Jim Willie firing all barrels in his latest broadcast on tbe Chinese colonization of North America and much more

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:16 | 4905498 starman
starman's picture

Family s I know and myself are paying a 100% more since the beginning of this year! No its not 10 its  100% more! 

Welcome to socialism! Fuck this government and it s leader! 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:39 | 4905705 toady
toady's picture

Ok, i'll be the odd duck. I was paying $650, and I turned 50, so it was going to jump to $850, so I checked Obamacare out. I'm paying $87 a month now.

Admittedly, I can work a system, but it really wasn't that hard.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 21:49 | 4906312 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Get back to us in 4 or 5 years with where it is at.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:48 | 4906478 Iriestx
Iriestx's picture

Because the rest of us are paying the difference.

Mon, 06/30/2014 - 06:57 | 4908986 skipjack
skipjack's picture

Bullshit, your numbers don't work. In order to get that kind of number per month you are making in the 20k-30k range. If so, $650 a month for your prior insurance was likely 30% of your net income after taxes. 


Do you live under a rock, or do you couch-surf with friends ?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:20 | 4905501 shermacman
shermacman's picture

They thought that making healthcare more expensive and harder to get would be good for the economy?! 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:30 | 4905509 craus
craus's picture

What isn't talked about is where we are all heading now that the ACA is a law.

What happens in other countries and isn't talked about, is in order to obtain specific and

proper health service you need to pay cash to the doctor to ensure you'll receive that service.

This is already done in other countries; source Dr. friends who came from other countries.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:21 | 4905866 HastaLaVictoria...
HastaLaVictoriaSiempre's picture

you get what you pay for.... The Greeks have "free" healthcare, but when your relative is in the hospital there doctors won't really do anything unless the family provides a small envelope with a "voluntary donation".  In the US, the best medical graduates migrate to the most prestigious hospitals which can charge whatever they want, while the foreign medical graduates with subpar credentials or US graduates with a history of malpractice will be hired in lower-tier (ie mostly Medicaid) centers.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:46 | 4905529 Duc888
Duc888's picture



Obamacare is a tax.  'splain to me again how a tax will promote economic growth.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:10 | 4905557 Escrava Isaura
Escrava Isaura's picture

Duc888 ....'splain to me again how a tax will promote economic growth.

Duc, I have $200 dollars. I give you $100 dollars and my doctor $100 dollars.

The $200 dollars is in the same 'US' economy. The only way these $200 dollars would NOT show is if I had placed those $200 dollars in a safe.... Instead spending it.

Now, I could leverage it 90% by buying 4 stocks, say at $500 dollars. Would you call it economic growth… Or gambling?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:37 | 4905594 Icewater Enema
Icewater Enema's picture

Spending is not growth. Economic activity is not the same as economic growth. Go read Henry Hazlett, in particular early on and the case of the vandal who breaks the window in the building. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:15 | 4905857 HastaLaVictoria...
HastaLaVictoriaSiempre's picture

Obamacare is an unevenly applied wealth redistribution scheme; someone had to pay for the 10% sickest/poorest who cost more than what they pay in premiums. Blatantly raising taxes would not have been palatable for the electorate, so the trick was to force part of the middle class into high-premium, high-deductible plans et voila, the indigent are covered. Note that workers who remain on an employer-sponsored plan, typically the highest earning taxpayers, are minimally affected except for a small increase in payroll deductions.


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:55 | 4906129 SDShack
SDShack's picture

Correct, but with one major change that is coming. Employer Plans are going to get wacked this year because the Risk Pools have been obliterated. This means that ALL plans will have to have double digit premium increases to cover the increased cost to the Insurers brought about by the destruction of the risk pools. The Insurers can't make up that shortfall just with private plans, they MUST go after employer plans. It's why 0zer0 keeps pushing the employer mandate out, but that means nothing because this is no longer about mandates, it is about Insurers being made whole for their increased costs. The Insurers (who wrote 0zer0care) anticipated this and built in a failsafe. They can either pass on premium hikes, or the FED GOVT pays the difference to the insurers (BAILOUT!) All this is going to come to light in a few months. Either the people are going to go ape shit over Insurance Company Bailouts courtesy of 0zer0care, or they wiil go ape shit over higher premiums. This is all in play now, and will be rolled out in September to meet the 90 day WARN notification to change employee plans that go into effect Jan 1, 2015. All this is going to hit just before the mid term elections, and it is going to be a bloodbath, that will carry over into the Holiday Spending period. 1Q2015 is going probably be the point everyone admits we are in a double dip recession (but everyone here knows we really have been in a depression since 1999, with "recovery/expansion" being nothing but Fed-Blown Bubbles).

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:30 | 4906875 HastaLaVictoria...
HastaLaVictoriaSiempre's picture

What about the effect of competition? Actuaries price pools according to risk, the latter often low in employer-sponsored groups because they are composed young individuals who by definition are healthy enoug to work. If my current insurer tries to rip off my group in 2015, wouldn't the employer shop around and find a carrier offering premiums that are better aligned with the risk of claims? Or even, put enough capital aside and "self insure"?


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 21:46 | 4906308 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

until end of this year.......

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 06:41 | 4906730 doctor10
doctor10's picture

'Splain to me how and where in the Constitution it says Americans can forced to pay a  Federal "tax" to a private corporation.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:52 | 4905541 stant
stant's picture

One of the major players in the liquidity crisis we are in presently

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:25 | 4905682 Escrava Isaura
Escrava Isaura's picture

Stant.....  “One of the major players in the liquidity crisis we are in presently”

Because there is NO more growth.... but growing liquidity [money] to keep these people 'still' employed.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:52 | 4905543 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

At least everyone has skin in the game. It's not like some of us are working all the time while others are being paid to sit around and jerk off all day. Thank God for that, otherwise all of this would be really insulting.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 05:45 | 4906692 StychoKiller
Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:55 | 4905547 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

   ANYTHING with the name Obama attached to it, is bad for the economy!

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:09 | 4905562 Escrava Isaura
Escrava Isaura's picture

 Yen.... ANYTHING with the name Obama attached to it, is bad for the economy!

So, enlighten us here: Which word, either to the right or left of 'Economy' would you suggest?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:15 | 4905858 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 I'd love to imbibe you. I apologize for the late rebuttal. I was tending my garden.

 • NSA spying

 •Fast & Furious

 • Ukraine

 • Iraq

 • Obunga care ( missed by 20 million according to latest estimates)

 •Gitmo hostage trade

 • Illegal Immigration ( enforce the laws that Reagan asked CONgress to enforce back in the 80's)

 Shall I continue assclown?



Sat, 06/28/2014 - 21:45 | 4906304 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

- changing risk category for gun related borrowers in effort to make it impossible for them to get loans

- Syria

- Iraq

- Ukraine

- illegal recess appointments

- droning of innocents

etc., you get the picture




Mon, 06/30/2014 - 07:03 | 4908990 skipjack
skipjack's picture

So don't borrow. Starve the banks, fukkem. NO ONE should be borrowing money. Buy used. Don't ever buy a new car. And fer gawds sake, don't hang a 30 yr millstone around your neck. Buy with cash, buy a caravan, buy a tiny cabin, rent, or bum a bed from friends.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:45 | 4906854 Escrava Isaura
Escrava Isaura's picture

Yen Cross

... Sorry! I meant to say some positive [your solutions] next to the world 'Economic Growth.'

By the way, Reagan and immigration at the same sentence? You lost me there.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:30 | 4905584 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

ANYTHING with the name Obama attached to it, is bad!


I have yet to see anything which has driven this country in the right direction.  All his policies seem to be enacted to destroy what America is all about.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:18 | 4905862 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  The enemy within Klink. I agree. If I had my way, I would BB-Q 99% of the leeching scumbag lawyers!

  Tort reform Bitchez...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:56 | 4905935 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

99% would be a good start. ;)

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:46 | 4906031 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Could you please articulate what you would like for "tort reform?"  I'm guessing it was already implemented 30+ years ago.  If you believe that medical professionals run additional tests because they're worried about lawyers (and not padding the bottom line, since they get paid for these tests), then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:27 | 4906458 drstrangelove73
drstrangelove73's picture

You are woefully mis-or uninformed,my friend.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 01:11 | 4906557 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You realize that the concept of suing people is millennia old right?  And that for the entirety of such time, there have been disputes and, thus, changes to how those suits are handled?  That, specifically, everything from tort immunity to limitations on damages have been implemented from time to time?

Since you're feeling froggy, please explain to the board what has happened each and every time tort immunity has been implemented.

PS, bonus question, why do many states' constitutions specifically prohibit the legislature from limiting damage awards and, further, why are these constitutional provisions at least a century old? 

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:23 | 4906868 drstrangelove73
drstrangelove73's picture

I know this:In the state where I've practiced for 30 years,abusive lawsuits rose to a fever pitch during the 80's and 90's until a republican governor and republican majorities in the senate and house capped damages and changed the administrative structure for handling lmalpractice,and cases and awards went through the floor.But the practices advised by our state insurer,who insures 90% of the physicians in the state and they give you a discount for periodically sitting through their in house dog and pony show on how to avoid being sued for malpractice?And to top that,every year,what do think is the issue over which most successful suits were brought hinges on? "failure to diagnose cancer"You don't think that affects how physicians practice?You don't know human nature.Every single week,I order tests common sense tells me are not necessary,and that the passage of time will clarify,but we order them to reduce this risk.One thing people do not understand is how traumatic it is to be sued for malpractice,but it will scar you for life.I have only had one suit indicated against me in all my years of practice,and it was so bogus it was dismissed out of hand in discovery but it haunted me for months.
Like I say, your sources of information on this are letting you down big time

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:29 | 4906932 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

And to top that,every year,what do think is the issue over which most successful suits were brought hinges on? "failure to diagnose cancer."

Wrong.  Do you really think that most successful suits are brought where a doctor fails to run an additional test or when a doctor saws off the patient's wrong leg?  Which do you think is easier to prove?  The standard to prove malpractice is incredibly difficult (much more difficult than a standard tort case).  In virtually all failure to diagnose cases, a physician treats the patient's symptoms with a viable treatment for those symptoms, however there was a concurrent cause that goes undiagnosed.  Do you think juries are inclined to break it off in a doctor's ass when the doctor correctly treated a patient's symptoms, and the failure to diagnose only came from failure to request additional (costly) tests that the patient didn't want anyway?  Long story short, failure to diagnose cases are usually wastes of time for plaintiffs' attorneys.  The time doctors really need to worry is when they harm a patient, not when they fail to cure.

You don't think that affects how physicians practice?You don't know human nature.

I'd say I know it as good as anyone.  Let's look at who benefits from running additional (unnecessary) tests...  In other words, where does the money go?  Well, it goes into your pocket or that of your employer, does it not?  The fact is that the medical industry has sucked on the government teet so long that it killed the golden goose.  Now, when the finger pointing starts, it's everyone else's fault than the people making all the money from the unnecessary tests.  I call bullshit.

But the practices advised by our state insurer,who insures 90% of the physicians in the state and they give you a discount for periodically sitting through their in house dog and pony show on how to avoid being sued for malpractice?

Let's talk about human nature some more.  If your insurer can convince you that the devil is just outside the door, do you think you will pay more or less for devil protection?  If you make more money, do you think an insurer will take a larger or smaller cut (i.e. charge more or less for premiums)?

Since you like to talk about research, here's something to review: following passage of "tort reform," what happens to malpractice insurance premiums?  In other words, insurance being the heavily regulated industry it is (and thus subject to incredibly burdensome laws, if the legislature so desires), why were premiums not mandated to be decreased by the states' insurance boards when the states passed caps on damages?  Or, do malpractice insurance premiums follow the same ebb and flow as prices of other insurance or, alternatively, follow the same or similar rate of increase as medical services in general?  

I know this:In the state where I've practiced for 30 years,abusive lawsuits rose to a fever pitch during the 80's and 90's until a republican governor and republican majorities in the senate and house capped damages and changed the administrative structure for handling lmalpractice,and cases and awards went through the floor.

Indiana I presume, but your observations are a coincidence.  The SCOTUS has limited punitive awards on all cases.  Virtually every state has passed caps on damages (although many are in contravention of their own state constitutions).  Your state's cap on damages is $1.25m.  You're telling me that there were "runaway" jury verdicts for med mal larger than $1.25m?  Statistically, that's about the top 5% of the ~2% of cases that go to trial...  is this "through the floor?"

Like I say, your sources of information on this are letting you down big time.

I was a few days short of filing a brief that would have declared my state's cap on damages as unconstitutional...  I was beaten to the punch by another case, which held exactly as my brief was drafted.  Just a hunch, but I'm guessing i've spent at least a hundred to one more time researching the issue than you...  and I'm probably considerably better at synthesizing it and efficiently researching.

I'll end with speaking some more as to human nature.  What happens in every single instance when humans have no liability (or limited liability) for their acts?  Hint: do you believe this increases or decreases carelessness [again, you do realize that "tort reform" is something that has happened in every form or fashion through the last few millennia, right?]


Sun, 06/29/2014 - 05:52 | 4906700 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

One simple change:  "Loser pays."

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:05 | 4906876 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

That decision was made centuries ago when we decided to improve on the british system.  We made the decision that it was more important to allow indigents access to the legal system at the risk of increased claims.  In a system where the loser pays, viable and legitimate legal causes of action sit on the sidelines for fear of losing a decision.  We chose a different policy. 

Further, the system is fairly well designed to weed out frivolous claims, so the only real downside is the cost of administrating those frivolous claims [which are partly paid by the plaintiff at the time of filing suit (and, in the event a frivolous suit is filed, the court is usually able to award attorneys fees and costs to the winner)].

So what is it that you're hoping to improve through a mandatory loser pays system? 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:09 | 4905564 Colonel Walter ...
Colonel Walter E Kurtz's picture

The full impact will not be felt until October 2015! Our firm would have started informing employees that insurance as going to be cancelled this fall but the President/Dems saw this coming. They changed the rules allowing the companies not to have to worry about the rules until the end of 2015, so our firm will just continue operating like it always has until Dec 1st 2015, when our insurance plan once again comes up for renewal. We will calculate up what we spend on the health insurance per year, subtract out the penalty costs that will/might be imposed, subtract the tax lost from not buying insurance, and then dole out the left over to the employees in a "taxable" health fringe that will not be enough to cover the cost of buying insurance. Companies DO NOT want to buy/provide health insurance but have done so since there never has been a widely available individual marketplace. I am not saying this is a good thing, but IT IS going to happen across the board with all firms in very short order starting at the end of 2015.      



Sat, 06/28/2014 - 20:08 | 4906149 SDShack
SDShack's picture

What you are articulating is the "Employer Mandate", but you aren't saying anything about the PREMIUM INCREASES you are going to pay because 0zer0care obliterated the risk pools. 0zer0 can't dealy that. The Insurers are going to have raise premium rates double digits for EVERYONE to account for this risk pool obliteration cost. Rest assured that your insurance provider is calculating that increase NOW, and will forward the bad news to your employer in a few months. I seriously doubt very many employers are going to swallow a double digit increase in premiums, so you will see that increase in September with your Open Enrollment Info. Come Jan 1, 2015, EVERYONE will be paying a lot more in premiums. Bank on it. This is just going to continue every year, and that is why it is called the Death Spiral. Eventually your employer will CANCEL your insurance, but not because of anything 0zer0 or the dumbcrats do. They will CANCEL it because it costs too much. The financial armageddon from 0zer0care is coming, and will be apparent to everyone in a few months. Plan accordingly.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 02:15 | 4906597 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

That's what happens when you try to insure something uninsurable like good health.  Unfortunately, health is all due to good genes and lifestyle.  Docs only treat the symptoms of bad health or accidents.

One pill makes you larger and one makes you small and the one your doctor gives you don't do anything at all.  But placebo effect will make you feel 10 feet tall.  To paraphrase Alice and Grace Slick.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:00 | 4906987 Colonel Walter ...
Colonel Walter E Kurtz's picture

You are correct about the costs also.

But what I am telling you is that even if the costs stayed level, or even go down, we still will be cancelling the health care. Handing healthcare and worrying about complying with the rules and regulations in properly notifying employees about healthcare not why our business exists. Now that there is going to be a large pool available in the individual market, the rates will be reasonable (I know, only because the Feds/us taxpayers are subsidizing the plan on the backside) so dropping the insurance at the first chance is no-brainer. In the past, before ACA, the costs of individual market was not realistic for most workers, so businesses provided insurance as a benefit.

We are heading towards the single payer regardless of costs because the medical insurance market and the medical profession has divorced itself from real world market forces (i.e. insurance does not pay for your cars oil change). All of us are going to suffer from what is coming. 


Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:14 | 4905575 orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

More government expansion - and this has to be questioned as to how it will impact the economy?  Really?


All right.  Here goes:


Governments invite unions.  Unions drive costs to bankruptcy.


If in doubt, call Detroit.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:09 | 4905648 Seer
Seer's picture

Yeah, and there coud never be a problem with it being all a SYMPTOM of the failed premise of perpetual growth on a finite planet, right?

The PROBLEM, as Dr. Albert Bartlett (RIP) make oh-so-clear, is that humans are unable to understand the exponential function.

NO ideology, I don't care what the fuck you come up with, if it is predicated on growth WILL collapse.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:32 | 4906940 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

" humans are unable to understand the exponential function".

I doubt many can hit the Memory Plus and recall buttons or what they stand for, let alone the Exponential Function.

The Ostrich mentality is thriving. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:26 | 4905582 NOZZLE
NOZZLE's picture

Encouraging lowlife scum bags to use more healthcare resources (just like they waste food by their very EBT existance) and then chalk that activity up as a healthy component of GDP is one of the biggest flim flams ever to hit this country short of the global warming bullshit. 

How does some poor POS spending someone else's money on health care increase this Nation wealth? 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:08 | 4905646 Colonel Walter ...
Colonel Walter E Kurtz's picture

Do they weight healthcare spending down by some multiplier? It seems any money spent on healthcare by someone who works could be considered productive as long as it gets that person back to work being "productive." Any healthcare spending by someone who does not work, seem to be opportunity lost, because those funds could have better been used by purchasing something manufactured/created.

Me thinks we have created a system that is overly top heavy with middleman individuals (politicians, government regulators, insurance processors, financial service types, etc...) that do not add value to the truly productive anymore. The overhead is killing us, everywhere all over the globe. 

Oh well...there is always war to look forward to, in order to thin the herd.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:49 | 4905614 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Was this a serious question? 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:10 | 4905655 Escrava Isaura
Escrava Isaura's picture

I wonder it myself, too! Ugrev.

Some of these hedgers have absolutely NO clue. Right and left are just noise.

Hedgers…. by Hedges: "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying ...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:06 | 4905639 Seer
Seer's picture

What a bunch of shit.  That is, the PREMISE is that growth is "good."  Um, Tylers, care to wise up and realize that NONE of this is good because it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to perpetually grow when we're all in this here FINITE planet.

Humans are deceptive.  I find that folks who post such things are either:

1) Party Pussies - trying to get their band of sycophants in power;

2) Ignorant - stop fucking trying to "educate" people when it's YOU that need educating;

3) Looking to mislead others so that you can make the killing on the "change" (it's ALWAYS about making a change, with the "change" being a set up/trap to sucker in the Bigger Suckers).

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:13 | 4905660 lindaamick
lindaamick's picture

Americans are waking up to the fact that the Medical Industrial Complex is driven by BigPharma and BigInsurance.  Outcomes are irrelevant and therefore the US is now last in Outcomes of all industrialized nations.

When I go to the doctor they push vaccines of all kinds.  I feel like they are salesmen for BigPharma.  Pills for everything.  Have a bad reaction to a pill?  Take another pill to counteract the first pill. 

The Profit Motive has no place in healthcare.  People will avoid going to the doctor whenever possible.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:51 | 4906040 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The profit motive has a great place in healthcare if we would force people to pay for their own healthcare costs and, likewise, allow bankrupt medical providers to fail...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:29 | 4906934 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

The U.S. is very, very late coming to the Health economics and outcomes party but is now trying to catch up.  Expect to see more and more programs offered at Universities, and other private venues that begin to relate the relatable in outcomes and their efficacy.  

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:32 | 4905997 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

No, not addressing the outrageous cost is bad for the economy.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:52 | 4906041 RevRex
RevRex's picture

This artikle bee raycess

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 20:11 | 4906150 RichardParker
RichardParker's picture

I know this is a little OT but why didn't the Greek gov. give these guys a pass?  It would have been a major shot in the arm for GDP under the new accounting rules.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:11 | 4906433 Omegaman2211
Omegaman2211's picture

Another low intelligence idiot-article posted on ZH. Too many of these lately.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:30 | 4906804 AdvancingTime
AdvancingTime's picture

I  respectfully disagree, ZH is a place to put out ideas. While some may at times be flawed or not meet our standards we are not forced to read them. Sites where attacks are common tend to grow an evil snd ugly edge,

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:22 | 4906455 drstrangelove73
drstrangelove73's picture

For anyone interested in a front lines report,I'm a physician,have been for 30 + years!and we looked at ACA 's rates,and we cannot afford to see these people.It pays even less than Medicaid,which we lose money on in every case and have only continued to see as a public service-but Obamacare aka ACA has lower rates AND you don't even know if you will get anything at all,the program is so screwed up.It's a possible hassle trying to collect rates that are below break even.It's a no income has gone down every year for the last 6, though I see more patients and spend more time doing so (EHR-another disaster altogether,don't get me started on that)so something has got to give.It may be me.I can retire and do something else,something I would never have envisaged 3 years ago.
And another thing-I'll guarantee you we went into a recession the first quarter of this year.Our collections dropped first quarter just like '08.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:24 | 4906457 MATA HAIRY
MATA HAIRY's picture

we need lots more medical and nursing schools---supply and down costs...import lots of doctors from and demand...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:29 | 4906460 drstrangelove73
drstrangelove73's picture

They are already doing that.Wait till you see the quality of the professionals who will be caring for you soon!

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:14 | 4906916 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

It is far worse than that.

In many countries the cost of going to the doctor is minimal even in local wage hour terms.

USA ER Visit: 7,500 USD

USA Per Capita ncome: 52,000 USD/year, 1000 a week, $200/day

Number of days for ER Visit: 37.5

Asia ER Visit:  $5 USD

Asia Per Capita Income: 1500 USD/year, 30 a week, $6/day

Number of days for ER Visit: 1.2

USA costs 30 X times to 200 X times more

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:38 | 4906815 AdvancingTime
AdvancingTime's picture

While I agree many doctors have not faired well during the last decade I also think healthcare is ridiculously expensive because many people have convinced themselves of  three things: The answers for good health outcomes rest with pills and procedures rather than good diet and exercise. Death at late stages of life is some strange, recent development in human history which justifies and necessitates extreme, exorbitant payouts to delay it for every possible last second.  And last but not least, thinking that mixing all the myriad of "health care" transactions that result from the just mentioned concepts with health insurance as originally conceived to protect a person from unforeseeable, catastrophic events like an accident is a good idea. Just because we can does not mean we should, healthcare is like a tape worm ever ready and always wanting to grow larger. More on why healthcare is so expensive in the article below.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:25 | 4906927 Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

"...........The answers for good health outcomes rest with pills and procedures rather than good diet and exercise......".

This should be plastered on the inside of everyone's forehead when they insist on having "Free healthcare".  

There should also be a version of "means testing" everyone who seeks medical care for preventable illnesses.

If you don't exercise regularly in your target heart rate range a minimum of 4x a week, and eat healthy, NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

Or pay your own premiums for high risk behavior.  

The essential fault with 'free' health care is it asks nothing of the patient. Which is ridiculous and it doesn't matter what other countries do like Canada with less people in the entire country than live in Californica. 

Either take the first steps of maintaining your own responsibility for your health or get lost.  


Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:02 | 4906989 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

For anyone interested in a front lines report,I'm a physician,have been for 30 + years!and we looked at ACA 's rates,and we cannot afford to see these people.It pays even less than Medicaid,which we lose money on in every case and have only continued to see as a public service-but Obamacare aka ACA has lower rates AND you don't even know if you will get anything at all,the program is so screwed up.It's a possible hassle trying to collect rates that are below break even.It's a no income has gone down every year for the last 6, though I see more patients and spend more time doing so (EHR-another disaster altogether,don't get me started on that)so something has got to give.It may be me.I can retire and do something else,something I would never have envisaged 3 years ago.
And another thing-I'll guarantee you we went into a recession the first quarter of this year.Our collections dropped first quarter just like '08.

I think this guy is a bot...  ACA doesn't have "rates."  Obamacare doesn't provide an insurance policy.  When a practitioner accepts insurance, they sign a contract with each insurance provider separately, to be in that insurance provider's network...  The reimbursement rates are dictated by the contract.  The reimbursement rates are often the same for multiple plans administered by the same insurance provider, including the new metallic plans.

Now, with higher deductibles, medical practitioners are going to get some interesting collection issues...  but that doesn't have anything to do with the reimbursement rates dictated in contracts for each particular service/billing code. 

Also, it sounds like to me that your fixed costs are too high.  You probably marginally make profit (if you can't then you're doing it wrong).  Of course you're going to make less money when price discovery is creeping up and people actually have to directly pay for the services you perform...  Now, it should happen that administrators get the boot and physicians stay flat (or even increase), but this would require physicians to be assertive.  The reality is that you (medical industry) have been making far more than society can actually pay for quite some time now...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 04:15 | 4906654 CHX
CHX's picture

<<< Yes

<<< NO

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 05:49 | 4906696 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

<<< YES

<<< NO

Question: Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:13 | 4906783 MFL8240
MFL8240's picture

Real question should be:

Is Obama Bad For US Economic Growth?
Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:33 | 4906808 AdvancingTime
AdvancingTime's picture

 A big shift is occurring in what consumers are buying. Recently we are witnessing a shift from general consumer goods to more purchases of autos and healthcare. The first quarter GDP just came out down 1% yet these two sectors have been outperforming the economy. This shift in spending is effecting other areas of the economy.

If indeed online and auto sales are roaring up double digits at the same time healthcare spending has increased 4.2% it is only fair to assume small business and someone else is getting their ass kicked. Interestingly, this is all occurring as the government continues to pour out billions of dollars each month in student loans, many of these loans will never be repaid. This can be viewed as more proof we are on the wrong path, more on this subject in the article below.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:10 | 4907000 damicol
damicol's picture

Wrong question..

should be

Is Obamacare good for the economy.

No Obama, no Obamacare

Get the fucking hunting rifles out and get this cock jockey Kentyan clusterfuck monkey put down and burn the filthy carcass.

Everything will be just fine then.




Sun, 06/29/2014 - 13:29 | 4907284 Mi Naem
Mi Naem's picture

"Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?"  Trick question. 

The asking is the answering, like "Does a bucket of feces smell bad?". 

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 15:50 | 4907676 walküre
walküre's picture

Does shit stink?

Is Obamacare Bad For US Economic Growth?
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!