NRSC: “How Obamacare Impacts Georgia.”

A new infographic from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

GA_INFOGRAPHIC

Discuss.

48 comments

  1. seenbetrdayz says:

    There isn’t much else to discuss. Republicans are gonna believe what they want to believe. Democrats are gonna believe what they want to believe. And then we will all get our bills in the mail.

    • saltycracker says:

      Exactly – plus it is an unmanageable black hole of money (but we’re going to fix that with more Federal employees/programs)
      Litmus test: put Federal employees, particularly congress, on it.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      Sticker shock has hit our household. individual plans. higher than normal increases. pushing us to take ACA plans, less benefits, lower deductible, at double rate per month. Not!

  2. CJBear71 says:

    Note – none of the “statistics” listed there are from sources after March 2013. I promise you, none of those “stats” are reflective of the actual plans offered in the exchanges, and I highly doubt any of them take into account the subsidies that people under 400% of Federal Poverty Level receive to help them buy insurance. While some young healthy people may see a cost increase, many millions more are getting access to health insurance for the first time and at much lower rates than their previous insurance without limitations for pre-existing conditions.

    -$10,849 per enrollee in Medicare over 10 years. Well, do some simple math then. That’s $1,084.90 per year and none of it comes from benefits to enrollees at all. Considering that in 2009 (latest year available), the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that Medicare spends $10,365 per enrollee per year, I doubt that many people would consider a 10% cut in government Medicare spending a destructive amount (it’s why no one really cared enough to stop the 8.5% sequester cuts to other government spending). Additionaly, it’s done through reducing payments to hospitals and providers, getting rid of some Medicare Advantage subsidies to private insurances, and getting rid of other waste in the system. You can make an argument this is a bad way to go about it, but that’s not what they are doing. They’re just throwing out misleading stats.

    As for the cost of Medicaid expansion – again, I’d like to see the numbers but those are more plausible. The Federal government is covering the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion 100%, and then no less than 90% in future years. We all pay for that for sure. But the total of Obamacare was 100% paid for and expected to reduce the deficit over the first 10 years and in perpetuity. In part, because they delayed some benefits until 2014 while they started some revenue streams in 2010. And made some other cuts to transfer funds to new or expanded programs (see Medicare above). But hey – it is paid for. That’s more than Medicare Part D could say when it started under the Bush Administration, or you know, a few recent wars.

    If things go well, 23 million more people will have health insurance. 23 million will have better access to preventive care. 23 million more will be able to have a majority of their bills paid after a medical emergency (not just pushed onto those of us who have employer-provided insurance and the government DSH funds) and potentially driven into bankruptcy. On a moral level, it’s a good thing.

    It would be about 35 million more insured, if some stubborn Georgian & other southern Republicans would expand Medicaid, rather than leave millions of poor people vulnerable.

    And if you want to argue otherwise intelligently – please come with better stats and figures.

    • Harry says:

      From Mark Steyn:

      China’s Ukraine deal may sound kinda wacky, but the People’s Republic consumes about 20 percent of the world’s food yet has (thanks to rapid industrialization) only 9 percent of its farmland. As Big Government solutions go, renting 5 percent of a sovereign nation to use as your vegetable garden and pig farm is a comparatively straightforward answer to the problem at hand. By contrast, try explaining American “health” “care” “reform” to the Chinese: You could rent the entire Ukraine for about 3 percent of the cost of Obamacare, and what does it solve? My colleague Michelle Malkin revealed this week that her family has now joined the massed ranks of Obamacare victims: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield sent her a “Dear John” letter explaining why they’d be seeing less of each other. “To meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date.”

      Beyond the president’s characteristically breezy lie that “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan” is the sheer nuttiness of what’s happening. For years, Europeans and “progressive” Americans have raged at the immorality of the U.S. medical system: All those millions with no health coverage! But Michelle Malkin had coverage and suddenly, under what Obama calls “universal health care,” she doesn’t. The CBO’s most recent calculations estimate that in 2023, a decade after the implementation of Obamacare, there will still be over 30 million people uninsured — or about the population of Canada. That doesn’t sound terribly “universal,” and I would bet it’s something of a low-ball figure: As many employers are discovering, one of the simplest ways “to meet the requirements of the new laws” and still stay just about solvent is to shift your workers from family plans to individual plans, and tell their spouses and children to go look elsewhere. Does it achieve its other goal of “containing costs,” already higher than anywhere else? No. Avik Roy reports in Forbes that Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by 62 percent for women, 99 percent for men. In America, “insuring” against disaster now costs more than you’d pay in most countries for disaster.

    • saltycracker says:

      Quick observations: Didn’t think Ga was in the 90% of Medicaid program.
      Will premiums go up for poor lifestyles like obesity, smoking ?
      Also it depends on where Medicare cuts – across the board or selectively – like will we still buying hoverounds or the grossly obese ?

      Govt continues to have limited will to ferret out fraud and abuse with healthcare and disability.
      Will govt end mandated coverage beyond emergency care for those not enrolled in some plan ?

      • NoTeabagging says:

        My current Insurer has charts for premiums that include smoker and non-smoker categories on their new ACA plans. But I thought many companies did that already?

  3. Gray says:

    Funny. It seems to have left out the subsidies for nearly 50% of Americans which change the numbers drastically. That is just an honest error from the NSRC right?

  4. bgsmallz says:

    http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/research-cost-aca-report.pdf

    The 2013 Actuary report cited by the poster is actually a fascinating read. And you know what else is fascinating…it defines the word ‘costs’…which is just a eetsy, weetsy bit important….nah!!!…we don’t want to jumble up the poster! Just leave it as ‘costs’…I’m sure that will not confuse anyone. (sigh…remember when being conservative started with having integrity and a responsibility to the truth?)

    “Costs” means claim costs per month to those with individual insurance…not out of pocket costs or premiums….not costs to the huge majority of folks who will see that poster that have employer provided insurance…but it sure looks purty.

    Here’s what the report cited above by the NRSC says about uninsured in Georgia…
    -Currently 18.2% uninsured.
    -If Georgia implements all aspects of the ACA, that number will drop to 6.6%.
    -Claim cost per person on an individual plan (which is different than employer provided plans and is NOT the same thing as out of pocket costs or premiums) will increase from $310 to $396 because benefits of preventive care will not out pace new costs.
    -Costs to uninsured will actually decrease significantly even with the mandate because the only folks left will be rich and super healthy.

    The same report states that the ACA will reduce the uninsured nationally from 16.6% to 6.6%.

    Cherry picking reports for cheap and misleading graphics is why these guys don’t get it. They don’t understand how to lead.

    BTW- the Actuary report completely contradicts the article by Matthews and Litow, but again, details. Why would the sources we cherry pick for a poster need to actually support each other? Yeesh.

    Real conservatives need to run away as far as they can from these nut jobs, stop accepting info spoon fed by info-graphic, posters, talk radio, and blogs and actually seek the truth…

  5. Jackster says:

    Pretty sure this should read: NRSC: Revsionist History of Obamacare in Georgia.

    In which we leave out completely the governor, insurance commissioner, and congressional leadership with how we actually provide coverage for the uninsured, stabilize funding for DSH hospitals, and address rural population needs.

    But I mean it’s pretty. I mean it has a nice personality.

  6. NoTeabagging says:

    I appreciate what ACA does for uninsured and people needing insurance for pre-existing conditions.
    But for the healthy, long time insured, the double rates and reduction in services and choices with forced ACA plans suck.

    Not sure if the exchange plans will be accepted widely by local doctors, some may have fewer or no choices if they get an exchange plan. Can anyone confirm?

  7. John Konop says:

    I would suggest everyone read the fine print of the plans….I have talked to a few fiends who have price shoped their plans.

    Example;

    His old plan was cheaper per month than the Humana Georgia plan per month than his old plan. But his old plan he had to start paying for claims below the $7500 dollar level of healthcare use. The new plan from ACA it was $1500. When he reviewed his spending over the last few years even with the higher payment, he would save a few thousand dollars a year on the ACA plan option.

    Devil is always in the details……not saying all plans work this way, but the simple per month comparison is not the best way to do this…..just my 10 cents….

    • Harry says:

      Are you saying the O-care offers a lower deductible at lower cost than a high deductible plan? That would be the deal of the century. I know that O-care doesn’t allow high-deductible plans.

      • John Konop says:

        It does from what people have told me…..and they were on high deductible plans with low monthly payments…..as I said the payment was higher on the Humana plan but the deductible was better…..As i said options should be weighed how you use healthcare was my main point…..also that do not get fooled by the payment comparison that is being used…..it all depends what you are getting…..I only got the calls via people asking my advise…..I told them to chart it side by side on key areas……They must have a lot of options via the questions I was asked…..

  8. Scarlett says:

    Not so much. My husband and I received a letter from our insurance company last week saying that, due to the Affordable Care Act, our health insurance premiums would be reduced by $400 per month. Where are we on this handy info-graphic?

Comments are closed.