cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-19-2016, 01:59 PM   #11
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
It showed "on balance," without correcting for those counting problems. I am aware of better evidence that shows there is no correlation between the Act and cost reductions. Reductions are tied to the economy, not to the Act.

Again, it appears he had some research assistant basically write it and he put his name to it, to get it published. A crappy, useless paper gets published because the President affixes his name to it.
Crappy useless paper? The ACA is the most ambitious attempt to extend coverage since medicaid. A front-lines report from the major proponent of the act has academic value.

The study uses a third-party survey that predates the ACA on how many people have insurance. If someone loses coverage, that's accounted for because the survey is blind to the mechanisms of the ACA.

The slowdown in growth of healthcare costs is UNPRECEDENTED. It's never happened before during ANY economic boom. You were probably looking at some white paper from some shady think tank.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2016, 06:57 PM   #12
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug View Post
Crappy useless paper? The ACA is the most ambitious attempt to extend coverage since medicaid. A front-lines report from the major proponent of the act has academic value.

The study uses a third-party survey that predates the ACA on how many people have insurance. If someone loses coverage, that's accounted for because the survey is blind to the mechanisms of the ACA.

The slowdown in growth of healthcare costs is UNPRECEDENTED. It's never happened before during ANY economic boom. You were probably looking at some white paper from some shady think tank.
No. I am looking at some economic papers from certain schools. The slow-down is not correlated to the ACA.

Conversely, healthcare costs have often risen faster than inflation. What drives healthcare costs has not been understood and still isn't. It is a much more complex equation than post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The slowing costs is more tied to the fact that Medicare is freezing payments, which insurance companies follow, than actual costs being frozen. Additionally, people were poor during the 2009 through 2015 period, so people were unable to spend more. There are plenty of citations that show the ACA is not responsible for any slow down in costs.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 06:37 PM   #13
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
No. I am looking at some economic papers from certain schools. The slow-down is not correlated to the ACA.

Conversely, healthcare costs have often risen faster than inflation. What drives healthcare costs has not been understood and still isn't. It is a much more complex equation than post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The slowing costs is more tied to the fact that Medicare is freezing payments, which insurance companies follow, than actual costs being frozen. Additionally, people were poor during the 2009 through 2015 period, so people were unable to spend more. There are plenty of citations that show the ACA is not responsible for any slow down in costs.
There have been plenty economic slowdowns in history with no corresponding reductions in health care costs.

Plus you're still attributing a 40% reduction in the uninsured rate to measure error, which is preposterous, to say the least.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.