Following are abridged excerpts from the
New York Times article:
The United States has overhauled its health care system, which accounts for
one-sixth of the engine of the economy. But [this] has two sets of goals: it aims to expand health coverage, and it aims to make the health care system more efficient.
Which of those efforts is more successful will have an outsize impact on the overall growth rate of the economy. That was one of the big lessons from new revisions to GDP data, which showed a surprise drop in health care spending; earlier releases of the first-quarter data showed a large gain. That swing was a major reason the economy shrank at a 2.9 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, its worst performance in five years.
But what it really shows is how the implementation of health reform is going to cloud our understanding of the economy for some time to come.The uncertainty around how the health law will affect spending patterns means that we may be in a period where quarter-to-quarter volatility in economic growth is driven by the micro details of how the health insurance law is working on the ground, rather than any broad momentum (or lack thereof) in the economy.
(Emphasis added)
Comments
Recently read a variety of articles along the same lines as the story you note.
Followed the ACA thing from its beginning to becoming law; as our house knew this would impact us going forward.
Monetary impact of ACA has been debated inside and out, eh?
We knew there would be a monetary impact for our household; 'cause we're too rich. Well, at least according to someone's math in D.C.
Our "impact date" is this summer.
---Old health care plan: COST = $940/month
---deductible $400
---coinsurance match maximum = $2,400
---coinsurance maximum % (what we pay) - 10%
---after $2,400 match maximum, no further payments required of us
---New health care plan: COST = $520/month
---deductible $12,700
---coinsurance = 40%, amount we pay regardless of meeting deductible
Dental insurance fun, too.
---Required to move to a new plan with the same dental insurer we have been with for more than 20 years; but because the plan administration has to now match our state, we are considered a new customer.
---cleaning and xrays start immediate
---simple tooth filling and related lesser procedures...6 month wait period
---crown, root canal and similar procedures...12 month wait period
COST = $135/month
NOTE: 'cousre the health care plan deductible resets each year, too.
Yes, this will affect our spending habits going forward. We have already notified
the local dollar store, gas station and Krogers. Supporting the state via a vacation is much reduced; so we notifited a few of our favorite Chamber of Commerce folks, too.
At least we have benefit of being investors and attempting to offset these new high costs via health care fund profits.
Lastly, the Detroit Free Press published the new listing for plan cost changes that will likely be submitted for state approval in a few months for the 2015 year. Nominal across the board increases are about 10%.
Regards,
Catch
One can cherry pick stats to show economic growth but the average middle class person has yet to see it. The economy seems to be growing all around them so to speak.
It all depends on what the meaning of rich is and with that I am afraid to check out 0-care. In my situation it wouldn't do me any good anyway. So I pay cash for all my medical and dental expenses.
@Catch, that health plan sounds very reasonable. ( sarc warning)
You have zero insurance? I suggest you indeed check out Ocare, fear and assumptions apart. I sure hope you stay insanely healthy and are not getting older by the day.
I'm afraid age is catching up to me. A few years ago I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I have already paid for a hernia operation. My hearing is going downhill and I plan to check out Costco and perhaps get some aids through them. Much cheaper.
So in a sense I am using the free market so to speak to find the best deal for my healthcare money. But, as mentioned above certain things would bankrupt most people. In the future I will get some kind of insurance. For now though I have to watch myself and be carefull.
peace,
rono
Around here the economy is slowly picking up. Very slowly. Hell, banks are even starting to list some foreclosures. That said, unemployment is still a bitch ~ 23% per shadowstats. As mentioned, inflation is hitting where it really hurts and the market basket make up and calculations are understating street inflation. Globalization and the internet are keeping the CPI in check while food and health are killing us. The liquidity trap is easing but still in place as the Fed has interest rates somewhere south of reality and that translates into lack of supply of money to borrow. feh.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
But, insurance is the name of the game in healthcare and I'm not going to fight it but only in my own time.
Back to the main topic, I agree with you regarding the economy. It is a polka dot economy where some areas are doing quite well. Seattle, San Francisco, and other areas are enjoying a resurgent economy. But if one travels just outside these areas they will find that the economy has not been so resurgent. For example, the last time I researched this the UE rate in the Tacoma metro area was two points higher than Seattle which is only 30 miles to the north. From what I have gathered from others, the same applies to most of these polka dots. That is my reference to the better economies. Usually this is normal but only for a short period of time until all areas are participating. It has been much longer this time around.
I don't have an answer or a reason. 0-care is not the booster that it was purported to be. Long term, I believe health care will be needed more as more boomers like myself access the system but it will not be operated as it is today. There will be more restrictions put into place. That is my opinion.
As noted prior, the president squandered a big opportunity by not promoting infrastructure projects to put people to work during the crisis. Power plants, highways and bridges, transportation and such could have been started with lasting results. We had some talk about it but the shovels remain on the shelf.
"As history reminds us, there is little appetite for taking the long-term view. Few are ready to curb financial booms that make everyone feel illusively richer. Or to hold back on quick fixes for output slowdowns, even if such measures threaten to add fuel to unsustainable financial booms. Or to address balance sheet problems head-on during a bust when seemingly easier policies are on offer. The temptation to go for shortcuts is simply too strong, even if these shortcuts lead nowhere in the end." (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-29/bis-slams-market-euphoria-finds-puzzling-disconnect-between-economy-and-market)
I have a difficult time accepting the idea that progress does not occur because one side or the other - leaders have to lead and the idea that something didn't happen because the other side was "too opposed" is a form of playing politics (finger pointing - "Hey, I tried - blame them") as well. Meanwhile, things don't get done while both sides point fingers at each other.
Politics in this country has really gotten to the point (on both sides) where it's having a decidedly negative effect on progress and any hope of it.
Couple of things. First off, health care should not be for profit. Period. You should not have to die or lose a leg or your sight because you cannot afford the care. Rubbish. Obama care sucks because it doesn't go far enough. We need a single payer system.
As for Obama, I voted for him and he's been a complete bust. Warmongering industrialist - just like Hillary. The $1T works bill he got thru early on went to feel good democratic projects instead of infrastructure. What - only 15-25% went to serious projects. It should have been 100% LEED cert infrastructure and administered by the states.
I don't agree with giving a man a meal - because he'll be back tomorrow. Why not give him a job - teach him to fish, as it were - so I he can feed himself.
The problem with our present economy is still lack of aggregate demand - not enough people buying stuff. We need some demand side economics. Supply side doesn't work by itself as proven by the past 20 years of fiscal policy. I warned all you folks about it with the Bush tax cuts - good but not enough on the low end of the ladder.
And this is why raising the minimum wage would help so much. It wouldn't raise my taxes but would raise some prices. I might have to pay a bit more for a BigMac. The folks receiving the increase are in those that have a Marginal Propensity to Consume of 1 and will therefore be spending every additional dime they receive - buying stuff. Will there be some jobs lost? Of course. There will be some businesses that have to modify their business model and some that will forego hiring another worker. feh. It's all on the margin folks, and the overall net/net impact would be positive - as it's been proven every place that has raised their minimum wage.
Thanks for letting me vent.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
If single payer ends up being the best plan I would refer to the Australia health plan. Everyone pays about 1% plus out of their pay. That gives everyone basic health services. You will have to wait to get things fixed if it's not a life threatening situation. Eventually you will be taken care of.
The good thing about Australia is that besides the govt plan you can also purchase private insurance so if you don't want to wait the private kicks in and then goes to the govt for reimbursement.
I know a guy who had a ruptured disc in his thoracic spine. Very painful but not life threatening. After waiting 4 weeks to see the surgeon he was told 4-6 months before the surgery could be done. Now he had private insurance so rather than being unproductive for all that time he had it done within two weeks and was back to work in no time.
I believe in the non- profit system because any profits are put back into the system in the form of equipment and sometimes wages.
PS: I don't know how Australia does it with that low of a tax rate. I would suspect it might be much higher than that. I heard that rate from a fellow expat up the street.
Edited to correct mistakes caused by a old person typing on a iPhone keypad.