By The Tim on March 1, 2011
Talk about health care to your heart’s content, as much as it takes to get it out of your system so the rest of the site can stick to real estate and housing. Note that comments posted here will not clutter up the “recent comments” box on the sidebar.
For previous health care open threads, click here.
As of 03/31/2010, health care comments go here and here only.
Posted in Administrative, Open Thread | Tagged administrative, health_open, open_thread
Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.
By pfft @ 100:
Of course it can regulate health care. That’s like saying the sun rises in the east.
The question is in regulating health care can the government force people into the market? The only justification for that seems to be that other government regulation of the health care market has screwed up the market so bad that an individual mandate is necessary. Under that theory the government could do anything if it screws something up! Price supports for wheat lead to shortages, then kill 30 million people to compensate. After all, they can regulate commerce!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is crazy. Apparently the state spends about $800 a month on health insurance for full time employees.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017889933_needle02m.html
I spend less than $500 a month on insurance and non-covered items.
That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets. It’s being spent on health care services which wouldn’t be spent if people actually cared what they spent on health care. That drives up the cost of medical services for everyone, and harms people without insurance.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
link please.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 1:
if you know anything about the healthcare market you know that your wheat analogy is wrong. the individual mandate is needed because private health insurance is so screwed up with it’s high administrative costs, lifetime caps, yearly caps, pre-existing conditions and the like that in order to make it better w/o bankrupting the industry we need a mandate.
if you were right and mandates drove costs up to unsustainable levels like you say Mass. healthcare would be a basket case but it isn’t.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 3:
Seriously, you don’t think pumping $300 a month extra into health care every month for every employee of King County is going to drive up prices.
Take a course on economics!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 4 – My wheat analogy just shows that because government screws something up it doesn’t allow them to do whatever they happen to think of to fix it. Do you seriously deny that?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 205:
you made specific comments. link please. for example
“That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets.”
link please.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 6:
the wheat market is NOT the same as health insurance. first of all one of the reason we have mandates is that people are not denied medical care when it is needed. hospitals and taxpayers pick up the tab. this costs more because people go to ERs instead of getting more effect care.
please show an example of mandates driving up health care costs and bankrupting the system like you have claimed.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 7 – There are stories in the Seattle Times about insurance companies increasing their reserves, but profits are highly regulated. Try to learn something about the topic you seem to have so much interest in. Your knee jerk Obama did it so it must be good analysis gets a bit tiring.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 8:
I’m not saying wheat is the same as health. I’m addressing the powers of the federal government, specifically the power of the federal government to force the people to enter the market and buy a product. That is a new power recognized seemingly by everyone but you.
For the example of the mandates driving up costs, that would be a bit tough since the mandates are not in place yet. Fortunately though I can point to Massachusetts. It hasn’t bankrupted their system yet (because it’s not nationwide), but costs there are through the roof.
http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1336254386/Massachusetts-struggles-to-rein-in-health-care-costs
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 207:
Here you go.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017719785_insurance11m.html
Two of the three big companies actually lost money last year, but they were increasing their reserves.
Amazing how their critics don’t like insurance companies having reserves. It’s not like building those up to a certain point increases long term costs, and it does protect the solvency of the entities. It would be like arguing a condo association is somehow being irresponsible building reserves. But hey, if your an elected official, it gets the votes of morons.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 209:
like I said before Washington’s system is not a model of anything because they screwed up by having no mandate.
“Your knee jerk Obama did it so it must be good analysis gets a bit tiring.”
Mandates were a gesture to Republicans. Mandates were first proposed by liberal Senator Orin Hatch. I don’t want mandates I want single-payer so don’t blame me like that.
Mandates are Constitutional.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4&feature=player_embedded#!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 213 – He lost me when he was talking about an educated well-informed electorate. ;-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Here’s an interesting article about issues with consumers making decisions regarding their health care, and how (and to some extent why) they do a lousy job of it.
http://www.techweb.com/news/232900154/why-healthcare-cost-reports-fail-consumers.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You people with traditional insurance, that don’t give a crap what anything costs, are killing me!
I go to the Mason Clinic to have the doctor look at and remove a cyst under my arm. He says it’s too irritated, so he gives it a shot and has me schedule a new appointment for removal.
I get the bill. They reduced amounts because I have insurance are $186 to see the doctor. That’s okay, he’s a specialist. $99.00 for the shot! But the kicker is, because he gave me a shot, the hospital, which I wasn’t even at, charges $75 for the exam room, claiming the shot is somehow a hospital procedure.
People with traditional insurance would pay a $25 co-pay and not care that their insurance company is being ripped off, not realizing that the charge will get passed on in the form of higher insurance premiums. But then, most people with traditional insurance don’t pay the premiums, so they don’t care about that either!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Talk about a frivolous lawsuit!
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Women-suing-McKenna-over-federal-health-care-law-3531995.php
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Obamacare is not very popular, and is becoming even less popular.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-most-americans-want-all-or-part-of-health-law-overturned-20120607
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 218:
obamacare when polled on the specific parts is very popular. many of those unhappy with obamacare still want to keep it or improve it. a minority wants to do away with it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:
4 or 5 other countries have our same system and don’t have our high costs. Mass with mandates has not seen prices skyrocket.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 220:
Quit posting incorrect facts. Massachusetts has had prices skyrocket, despite the fact that they were already the highest in the nation before Romneycare.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm
And once again your memory sucks. This has already been covered.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 221:
costs have not skyrocketed in Mass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/charts-six-ways-romneycare-changed-massachusetts/2012/04/12/gIQAGXuhCT_blog.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 22 – LOL. Is that site a joke? Apparently health care costs being controlled in Massachusetts isn’t something the politicians know anything about. They’re currently trying to pass legislation to help control the spiraling costs.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9V7O7680.htm
And things are not as rosy in that state as you claim.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/12/poll_sick_adults_in_massachusetts_struggle_with_health_costs_despite_insurance_coverage/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
yes Kary because healthcare costs are only “spiraling” in Mass! costs are not spiraling out of control because of romneycare.
more proof:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-is-no-one-talking-about-massachusetts/2012/05/22/gIQATLP6hU_blog.html
that should settle that…
of course the ONLY thing that really matters is that the number of people with insurance in Mass is above 90% and it’s making people healthier.
Study: Romneycare is making Massachusetts healthier
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/study-romneycare-is-making-massachusetts-healthier/2011/08/25/gIQA524T7R_blog.html
Around 5 countries have insurance mandates like ours, why are their costs half of ours are if you are right? the answer of course is that you are wrong.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 24:
In addition to a course on economics you need to take a course on basic math. If something is already the highest in the nation, it’s most likely to rise at lower rates than the rest of the nation if you’re working on a percentage basis.
So, for example, if insurance costs $400 a month in Massachusetts to start, and it goes up $40, that will “only” be a 10% increase. In a state where insurance costs $300 that same 40 increase would be a larger percentage, and Massachusetts would do better in comparison.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 225:
what? just say it kary: I was wrong!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 26 – Huh? Finally run out of trolling ideas?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 26 – Huh? Finally run out of trolling ideas?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Here we are, presumably on the morning of the decision.
Assuming the decision comes down today, and the court doesn’t somehow duck the decision, this could be the biggest decision since Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade, or maybe even some decisions from the 1930s. And it won’t be that because of the subject matter–health care. It could be that because of what the Court says about the scope of the commerce clause and the powers of the federal government.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Maybe not a far reaching decision after all. Upheld, but not based on the Commerce Clause.
Still a bad decision for health care in this country, but not an extremely far reaching bad decision.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
For those who want to read the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I’m only through the first part which deals with the mandate and the tax, but not the Medicare holding. That part is a very well written decision by Court standards. Very understandable. The average person with a college degree could read and understand the decision.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The Medicare portion of the opinion either was not was well written, or not a topic I’m as interested in. It was a snoozefest.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Here’s a recent survey that shows not only that independents don’t like Obamacare, but also that Republicans don’t like it more than Democrats like it.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/06/30/US-evenly-split-on-healthcare-reform/UPI-95321341035541/#ixzz1zHZoA2Fp
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Fun post here arguing to game the system. Simply pay the penalty and only actually get insurance once you have a critical need. This, of course, will bankrupt the system:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-to-game-obamacare-and-eventually.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: ChrisM @ 235 – And before it bankrupts the system, those with insurance will have to pay more–a lot more.
And now that it’s a “tax,” there’s no way in hell that Congress will increase the penalty, so the problem will not be fixed.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“So … Obama was against raiding Medicare to fund an “ill-conceived, badly thought through plan†to reform the health-care system before he was the author of those cuts to fund ObamaCare. Gotcha”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/17/ryan-were-going-to-keep-pressing-our-medicare-advantage/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Good thing Obamacare is controlling costs and doesn’t cause hyperinflation of healthcare costs. My insurance only went up by 16.5%.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 237:
there were no cuts. we simply got a group discount on medical care. can you name what those cuts to medicare were or are? what medical care did seniors get that they won’t get now?
ryan had nearly the same in his budget. he ended medicare as we know it and voucherized it. obama is leading in the medicare polls, keep pressing that “advantage.”
why did you mislead us on on the Libyan situation? if you read your own article you would see that he went in voluntarily for questioning.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Does anyone here have any insight on Consumer Drive Healthcare Plans (CDHP) and Healthcare Saving Accounts (HSA)?
I am being given a choice on either continuing with PPO or choosing this new CDHP and would like to hear from someone with experience in the matter. Thanks.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David S @ 240 – I can’t comment on the employer based plans. I’ve heard some you lose your money contributed if not used, but apparently that’s no longer always the case.
We have a HSA with a high deductible plan. How those works depends on your personality. If you like to have control and decide what to do based on what’s best for you, then you’ll like them. If you like to just do things without thinking, then you won’t like them.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The Seattle Times is covering the facilities charge issue I mentioned here:
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2011/03/01/health-care-open-thread-ii/comment-page-3/#comment-164266
Here’s the article:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019600338_facilityfees04m.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 238:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. A rather juvenile logical fallacy. Try again when you can prove that a caused b.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Jamarcus @ 243 –
Exactly.
The whole point of Health Care Reform was to have a mechanism in place to address skyrocketing costs.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 44 – RE: Jamarcus @ 43 – Take a course in basic economics and then you’ll understand why costs will skyrocket with more insurance. It’s because fewer and fewer people will care what anything costs, and make decisions irrespective of cost. It’s increased demande without any increase in supply. In California the insurance rates are going up much more than the 16% my rates are going up.
In addition, Obamacare requires certain things be covered, such as annual physicals. Those are not going to be included in insurance coverage without an increase in rates. Contrary to popular belief, insurance companies don’t just print money. Every dime they pay comes from premiums, and if they have to pay more out, they have to take more in.
Losh, there is no mechanism to keep costs down. There are only things in place to keep the government from paying as much. The rest of us will get screwed. Calling it the Affordable Healthcare Act was very 1984.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Health-insurance-rates-could-shoot-up-4079244.php#ixzz2EWAcWRSu
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 245 –
I said Health Care Reform which has nothing to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act, or ObamaCare.
Health Care Reform is making a single payer system run by our government. You don’t like it? You can get your own private pay insurance.
In the world of entitlements we already have government run health care that should be available to all citizens. By sharing a larger pool of participants we may even get closer to balancing the budget.
Government run single payer health care is where Health Care Reform is headed.
What got passed by Congress is a joke that won’t last. Next round, hopefully when the Democrats control the House, we will get Health Care Reform.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 247 – I would agree with most of that, except I don’t see how we’re going to get to single payer even though it probably is a good idea. Maybe the collapse of the entire healthcare system will get us there, but otherwise I don’t see it happening. There would be way too much opposition from way too many entities with way too much money.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Not the best source in the world, but here’s an article claiming insurance premiums are going to skyrocket further (and noting how much they have gone up already).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/01/07/obamacare-guarantees-higher-health-insurance-premiums-3000-higher/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Supporters of Obamacare finally realize the obvious.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020384158_healthcostsxml.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
And the savings from Obamacare just keep rolling in! /sarc
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/20-health-insurance-hike-for-some-in-Bay-Area-4291878.php
Rate this comment:
0 
0
meanwhile back in the real world…
Kentucky Will Expand Medicaid Under Obamacare, Cutting Its Uninsured Population By More Than Half
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/09/1989701/kentucky-expand-medicaid/
kary do you think that is a bad idea?
meanwhile back in the real world again Obamacare is already lowering healthcare costs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/22/heres-why-health-care-costs-are-slowing/
Rate this comment:
0 
0