Health Care Open Thread II

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.


About The Tim

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.

422 comments:

  1. 1
    whatsmyname says:

    No comments? This is terrible. C’mon, Kary. Put up yer dukes. Then we can discuss the best way to handle treatment costs for whichever of us takes the worse beating.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. 2
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    We need some new news–like maybe the decision on the clarification motion in that FL case. I don’t search for such things like some.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. 3
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    Speak of the devil, this just popped up on MSNBC. I’ll have to try to get a copy, but this is being reported as a stay pending appeal. I don’t think that’s really what it is, because I’m not sure an appeal has been filed.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41890606/ns/politics-more_politics/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. 4
    pfft says:

    how is this possible? government only raises the cost of healthcare.

    Medicaid Costs Growing More Slowly Than Private Insurance
    http://www.offthechartsblog.org/medicaid-costs-growing-more-slowly-than-private-insurance/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. 5
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 4 – You do realize that article contradicts everything you’ve been saying here, right? I’ve been arguing that a government run program would be cheaper in the long run than Obamacare which calls for more insurance, which is inflationary. That article would support my claim.

    Beyond that though, I’m not sure how prescription drugs fit into Medicaid, specifically if they added more coverage like they did with Medicare. I bring that up because with private health insurance many states over the period mandated additional coverage for health insurance, and that would make the price rise. I’m not sure there’s been any additional coverage added to Medicaid, so it wouldn’t rise for that reason.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. 6
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 5:

    RE: pfft @ 4 – You do realize that article contradicts everything you’ve been saying here, right? I’ve been arguing that a government run program would be cheaper in the long run than Obamacare which calls for more insurance, which is inflationary. That article would support my claim.

    you haven’t been arguing for a government program. you said insurance is inflationary. why wouldn’t care be inflationary? how is it inflationary if everyone has insurance but it isn’t if everyone has government care?

    I’ve alway been for medicare for all.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. 7
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 6 – I haven’t been arguing for government healthcare? Read post 55 here:

    http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2010/03/31/health-care-open-thread/comment-page-2/#comments

    As to why insurance is inflationary, read posts 71 and 75.

    As to the difference between insurance and a government run program, read post 149.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. 8
    pfft says:

    Forget Medicare, THIS Is The Chart That Shows Why America Is Doomed
    http://www.businessinsider.com/us-most-inefficient-healthcare-system-in-the-world-2011-3

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. 9
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 8 – That article makes another point: “After all, the costs borne by Medicare are no more sustainable if they’re shifted to private individuals. It’s just the path is different.”

    That’s mainly what the cost savings/deficit reduction of Obamacare is. It shifts the cost from government entities to private individuals. There is almost no savings, and what little there is will be more than offset by increased inflation in health care services and drug costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. 10
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    Good example of how insurance affects pricing:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41994697/ns/health-pregnancy/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. 11
    softwarengineer says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 10

    Yes Kary

    Someone must pay, and saying there’s no new taxes is a joke….no new clear taxation is a better way of putting it.

    I’m old fashion Democrat [Independent now-a-days] and push for the taxpayer and the little guy; but keeping or increasing medical payroll at pre-recession labor force [tax base] size, let alone not reducing the medical costs to our shrinking labor force that BLS admits and Scotsman proved is totally absurd.

    We can’t reduce private enterprise jobs to part time and hamburger flipper levels, while simultaneously decreasing higher paid slots and keep government the same size or even dream of enlarging healthcare pay outs for salaries….it’s a pipe dream doomed to fail. Obamacare Democrats better start thinking pragmatically, not just what they want. It’s simply not fair to tax paying [or insurance paying] Americans.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. 12
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    Maybe this should be the health care model for avoiding the creation of death panels? ;-)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/violent love-as-a-heart-attack-tri_n_839252.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. 13
    pfft says:

    Paul Ryan says we need to destroy medicare in order to save it!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. 14
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 13 – I don’t care for his fix any more than I care for Obamacare, because it’s largely the same thing, with a different effective date.

    I do like the idea of making both medicare and social security subject to income/wealth restrictions so that the government isn’t giving “safety net” money to wealthy people.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. 15
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 14:

    RE: pfft @ 13 – I don’t care for his fix any more than I care for Obamacare, because it’s largely the same thing, with a different effective date.

    I do like the idea of making both medicare and social security subject to income/wealth restrictions so that the government isn’t giving “safety net” money to wealthy people.

    really? one gives ten of millions of people access to medical care and the other doesn’t. other than that they are the same though I agree.

    unbelievable.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. 16
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 15 – What’s unbelievable is your inability to understand even extremely simple concepts.

    They both rely on private insurance, which is how they are the same. How difficult is that to understand?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. 17
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:

    RE: pfft @ 15
    They both rely on private insurance, which is how they are the same. How difficult is that to understand?

    one plan would let you be able to afford coverage and the other wouldn’t. unbelievable.

    by the way Romneycare has been a stunning success. almost everyone has coverage.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. 18
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    By pfft @ 17:

    by the way Romneycare has been a stunning success. almost everyone has coverage.

    If your only criteria is coverage, sure. That’s like judging a car only by whether it has four wheels. Every car is great!

    Costs are rising rapidly in Massachusetts, even though when Romneycare started there they already had some of the highest costs in the nation. Now insurers are threatening to pull out or go bankrupt, medicaid spending is up 75% and there are a lot of other problems because all they did was increase the demand for healthcare.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. 19
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    By pfft @ 17:

    one [insurance] plan would let you be able to afford coverage and the other wouldn’t. unbelievable.

    Why do you think there would be different results? With the Republican plan they are even helping people pay for the insurance. If you think more insurance (Obamacare) is great, you should also think more insurance for seniors (the Republican plan) is great.

    I think both plans suck. I would rather have all care more like the VA and Medicare, and have less insurance.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. 20
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 18:

    By pfft @ 17:
    by the way Romneycare has been a stunning success. almost everyone has coverage.

    If your only criteria is coverage, sure.

    is there really another one? the current system is so bad we needed Romneycare and Obamacare. the crisis is already here.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. 21
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    By pfft @ 20:

    If your only criteria is coverage, sure.

    is there really another one? the current system is so bad we needed Romneycare and Obamacare. the crisis is already here.

    Of course there’s another one. There’s not spending so much money on healthcare that it bankrupts the entire nation and destroys the economy forcing everyone to live in poverty. That’s where we’re headed with Obamacare.

    But let’s assume you’re right. We’re in a crisis right now that requires immediate action! What is different now about healthcare than 20-25 years ago? It’s that it’s extremely expensive. Now ask yourself, why is that? When you finally figure out the answer, you’ll finally understand why Obamacare is like putting out fire with gasoline.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. 22
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 21 – I should have checked the post. The first paragraph above is mine, the second pfft, the rest mine.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. 23
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    President Obama apparently punted on Medicare/Medicaid. He’s going to make it more efficient. Now there’s a novel idea. Why don’t we apply that to all of government and that will undoubtedly solve all our problems! We don’t need to deal at all with entitlements or worry about the deficit, we’ll just make things more efficient.

    2011 started out better for President Obama, but he’s quickly going downhill again.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. 24

    New news today on Medicare. It will be out of funds by 2024 rather than 2029.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43023843/ns/politics-more_politics/

    What’s interesting is people were in an uproar about Ryan’s plan which only affected people over 50. Apparently when that was being debated no one was arguing that the entire program would run out of funds in 18 years (now 13). Assuming you qualify at 65, people at 50 years of age would have only received 3 years of coverage. Now they won’t be covered at all.

    I never really studied Ryan’s plan, so I can’t say it was a good idea, but something does need to be done.

    BTW, the same story also covers SS, and it’s just the same issue but further out.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. 25
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 24:

    I never really studied Ryan’s plan, so I can’t say it was a good idea

    of course ending medicare isn’t a great idea.

    medicare will just be given more money. simple as that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. 26

    RE: pfft @ 25 – It’s not “ending Medicare.” Don’t buy the Ds rhetoric. It’s just as inaccurate as the Rs rhetoric.

    Also, there are solutions other than more money. For example, don’t pay for medical care for millionaires.

    It’s funny how people who support the estate tax will also support our current Medicare system. Millionaires get medical care so they can pass along more to their heirs. It would be much better, IMHO, to have wealthy people who can pay for their care, and to not tax their estates when they die. There’s no reason for the government to pay for medical care of the wealthy, and no reason to take their assets when they die just because they are wealthy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. 27

    Here’s an interesting article on health insurance:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43031343/ns/business-consumer_news/

    It starts as a piece about how the big bad insurance companies are making a lot of money because people are not utilizing medical services due to the economy, but then works its way into how people spend their money and how the deductible makes a difference. Apparently now 10% of people who get insurance through their employer have at least a $2,000 deductible (not mentioned is an annual physical is covered).

    Anyway, this type of report is evidence of what I’ve been saying–that we spend too much on medical care because too many people don’t care what anything costs. That’s changing, reducing spending (and temporarily increasing health insurance company profits).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. 28
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 26:

    RE: pfft @ 25 – It’s not “ending Medicare.”

    medicare will go from paying 75% to 35%. that is ending medicare.

    they want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations who have done well while giving you a meager medicare gift card.

    it’s so bad the republican’s have already abandoned the effort after passing the bill in the house.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. 29

    By pfft @ 28:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 26:
    RE: pfft @ 25 – It’s not “ending Medicare.”

    medicare will go from paying 75% to 35%. that is ending medicare.

    they want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations who have done well while giving you a meager medicare gift card..

    No, going from 75% to 0% would be ending Medicare.

    And the point of supporting the “tax breaks” as you call them, or opposing the “tax increases” as anyone non-partisan would call them, is to have more jobs in the economy. The idea is a bigger pie.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. 30
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 29:

    By pfft @ 28:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 26:
    RE: pfft @ 25 – It’s not “ending Medicare.”

    medicare will go from paying 75% to 35%. that is ending medicare.

    they want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations who have done well while giving you a meager medicare gift card..

    No, going from 75% to 0% would be ending Medicare.

    people can’t afford 35% that’s why we have the program we have now and that is why the public doesn’t like paul ryan’s medicare gift card program.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. 31

    RE: pfft @ 30 – It’s “some people” can’t afford the 35%, but we have a system which pays for everyone regardless of need. Do you really think the US government should start paying for Bill Gates’ medical care in a few years?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. 32
    pfft says:

    newt called the plan a radical right-wing plan.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/05/the_big_walk_back_begins.php?ref=fpblg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. 33

    RE: pfft @ 32 – I saw that. He’s clearly posturing, but I’ve said myself Ryan’s plan isn’t necessarily the best but that something needs to be done. The status quo won’t cut it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. 34
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 33:

    RE: pfft @ 32 – I saw that. He’s clearly posturing, but I’ve said myself Ryan’s plan isn’t necessarily the best but that something needs to be done. The status quo won’t cut it.

    yes it does. we can’t afford to cut benefits. we need to raise taxes on the rich and lower healthcare costs which obamacare does.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. 35

    Why can’t we cut benefits for the wealthy? What’s so important about paying medical costs of wealthy elderly people?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. 36
    pfft says:

    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

    At Least 600,000 Young Adults Join Parents’ Health Plans Under New Law
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/01/young-adult-health-insurance-coverage.aspx

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. 37
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:

    Why can’t we cut benefits for the wealthy? What’s so important about paying medical costs of wealthy elderly people?

    won’t do much for savings.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. 38

    By pfft @ 37:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:
    Why can’t we cut benefits for the wealthy? What’s so important about paying medical costs of wealthy elderly people?

    won’t do much for savings.

    So you’d rather have the entire system crash for everyone in 2024 than to have those who can afford to pay more do so?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. 39

    By pfft @ 36:

    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

    At Least 600,000 Young Adults Join Parents� Health Plans Under New Law
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/01/young-adult-health-insurance-coverage.aspx

    If you want to limit yourself to a shallow of analysis, then yes, that’s good news. If you want to look at secondary unintended (but known) consequences of that, then it might not be so good.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. 40
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 39:

    By pfft @ 36:
    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

    At Least 600,000 Young Adults Join Parents� Health Plans Under New Law
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/01/young-adult-health-insurance-coverage.aspx

    If you want to limit yourself to a shallow of analysis, then yes, that’s good news. If you want to look at secondary unintended (but known) consequences of that, then it might not be so good.

    I don’t even know where to start. name these known secondary unintended consequences. I would love to hear such nonsense.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. 41
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 38:

    By pfft @ 37:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:
    Why can’t we cut benefits for the wealthy? What’s so important about paying medical costs of wealthy elderly people?

    won’t do much for savings.

    So you’d rather have the entire system crash for everyone in 2024 than to have those who can afford to pay more do so?

    why would it crash?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. 42

    By pfft @ 40:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 39:
    By pfft @ 36:
    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

    At Least 600,000 Young Adults Join Parents�¢ï¿½ï¿½ Health Plans Under New Law
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/01/young-adult-health-insurance-coverage.aspx

    If you want to limit yourself to a shallow of analysis, then yes, that’s good news. If you want to look at secondary unintended (but known) consequences of that, then it might not be so good.

    I don’t even know where to start. name these known secondary unintended consequences. I would love to hear such nonsense.

    Do you have a severe memory problem? Inflation in the cost of medical services and rapidly rising insurance rates.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. 43

    By pfft @ 41:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 38:
    By pfft @ 37:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:
    Why can’t we cut benefits for the wealthy? What’s so important about paying medical costs of wealthy elderly people?

    won’t do much for savings.

    So you’d rather have the entire system crash for everyone in 2024 than to have those who can afford to pay more do so?

    why would it crash?

    Oh, apparently you do have a severe memory problem. The news is only about a week old that Medicare will be bankrupt in 2024.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/032452_Medicare_bankruptcy.html

    That’s part of the reason Ryan was trying to do something about Medicare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. 44
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 43:

    By pfft @ 41:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 38:
    By pfft @ 37:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:
    Why can’t we cut benefits for the wealthy? What’s so important about paying medical costs of wealthy elderly people?

    won’t do much for savings.

    So you’d rather have the entire system crash for everyone in 2024 than to have those who can afford to pay more do so?

    why would it crash?

    Oh, apparently you do have a severe memory problem. The news is only about a week old that Medicare will be bankrupt in 2024.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/032452_Medicare_bankruptcy.html

    That’s part of the reason Ryan was trying to do something about Medicare.

    ryan doesn’t care about medicare. who cares if medicare goes bankrupt? we’ll just give it more money. problem solved.

    ryan’s plan will crush healthcare for seniors. it’s a millions times worse than what we have now.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. 45
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 42:

    By pfft @ 40:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 39:
    By pfft @ 36:
    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

    At Least 600,000 Young Adults Join Parents���¢�¯�¿�½�¯�¿�½ Health Plans Under New Law
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/01/young-adult-health-insurance-coverage.aspx

    If you want to limit yourself to a shallow of analysis, then yes, that’s good news. If you want to look at secondary unintended (but known) consequences of that, then it might not be so good.

    I don’t even know where to start. name these known secondary unintended consequences. I would love to hear such nonsense.

    Do you have a severe memory problem? Inflation in the cost of medical services and rapidly rising insurance rates.

    yeah because we all know that’s not happening now.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. 46

    RE: pfft @ 45 – Again, you have a really bad memory. I don’t care to go over that yet another time.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. 47

    By pfft @ 44:

    who cares if medicare goes bankrupt? we’ll just give it more money. problem solved.

    Wow. You really don’t understand the issues at all. With simplistic blind to the world thinking like that you could solve the social security problem, and every other problem in the world!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. 48
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 47:

    By pfft @ 44:
    who cares if medicare goes bankrupt? we’ll just give it more money. problem solved.

    Wow. You really don’t understand the issues at all. With simplistic blind to the world thinking like that you could solve the social security problem, and every other problem in the world!

    actually it IS that simple. if medicare is “broke” just add more money to the
    program. how do you think they solved the SS problem in the 1980s? they added more money through a tax. it IS that easy. obamacare had significant reforms for medicare anyway but nobody talks about it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. 49
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 46:

    RE: pfft @ 45 – Again, you have a really bad memory. I don’t care to go over that yet another time.

    they studied it and the impact was minimal especially compared to the tens of millions it would cover.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. 50

    RE: pfft @ 49RE: pfft @ 48 – As to 49, again you have a bad memory. You can’t remember what you don’t remember. That answer is completely non-responsive.

    As to 48, you can’t keep throwing more and more money at healthcare, I know you don’t care how much is spent, the the economy does care.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. 51
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 50:

    RE: pfft @ 49RE: pfft @ 48 – As to 49, again you have a bad memory. You can’t remember what you don’t remember. That answer is completely non-responsive.

    As to 48, you can’t keep throwing more and more money at healthcare, I know you don’t care how much is spent, the the economy does care.

    no it doesn’t. what evidence do you have for that?

    Romneycare is VERY popular.

    The poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, up 10 percentage points in the past two years. Just 21 percent said they were against the law.

    http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/06/05/support_for_massachusetts_universal_health_care_law_rises/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. 52

    RE: pfft @ 51 – Since when do we judge things by whether they are popular? The Monorail won an election and was a financial disaster (and was also somewhat regressive in that it didn’t tax the sale of new cars for a reason that has nothing to do with any valid policy). Anyone with half a brain would have known that going in, but having half a brain isn’t a requirement to vote within the city limits of Seattle.

    Employer provided health insurance is popular too, because it pays peoples’ bills. The average person is stupid. They don’t realize how much it is really costing them, or that they are paying much more than they should be.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. 53

    Obamacare is going to be real popular in 2014! /sarcasm

    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_18220146?nclick_check=1

    Even though many of these changes will be beneficial, people don’t tend to like change. Any wonder these changes kick in after the 2012 election?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. 54

    An 18% increase in insurance fees (the third year of double digit increases), and lower benefits, and the company is losing money!

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Group-Health-insurer-raises-rates-slashes-1414154.php

    But hey, pfft says health care costs are not skyrocketing. And it doesn’t matter anyway, because those paying can just pay more money. No problem.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  55. 55
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 52:

    RE: pfft @ 51 – Since when do we judge things by whether they are popular?

    you’re are right. the only number that matters is that in Mass 98% of the people have insurance. that is the only number that matters.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  56. 56

    By pfft @ 55:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 52:
    RE: pfft @ 51 – Since when do we judge things by whether they are popular?

    you’re are right. the only number that matters is that in Mass 98% of the people have insurance. that is the only number that matters.

    No what matters is what it costs.

    http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1336254386/Massachusetts-struggles-to-rein-in-health-care-costs

    From article: “It’s a serious problem: Massachusetts boasts that 98 percent of its residents have health insurance, but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics would have known that would happen. Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. I will admit it’s falling apart in ways I wouldn’t expect, but it shouldn’t be too surprising that an unstable system would behave oddly.

    That’s the future of health care in the U.S. under Obamacare. Rapidly rising costs (even during periods of low inflation), followed by total collapse.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  57. 57
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:

    By pfft @ 55:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 52:
    RE: pfft @ 51 – Since when do we judge things by whether they are popular?

    you’re are right. the only number that matters is that in Mass 98% of the people have insurance. that is the only number that matters.

    No what matters is what it costs.

    http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1336254386/Massachusetts-struggles-to-rein-in-health-care-costs

    From article: “Itâ��s a serious problem: Massachusetts boasts that 98 percent of its residents have health insurance, but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics would have known that would happen. Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. I will admit it’s falling apart in ways I wouldn’t expect, but it shouldn’t be too surprising that an unstable system would behave oddly.

    That’s the future of health care in the U.S. under Obamacare. Rapidly rising costs (even during periods of low inflation), followed by total collapse.

    COSTS ARE RISING ANYWAY! what we know about the present system is that it was so bad the people just couldn’t take it anymore.

    obamacare will add little to premiums. I posted that a long time ago.

    “Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. ”

    you are lying. stop lying. the system is not falling apart.

    “but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”

    which is why romneycare was passed genius.

    about costs.

    Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  58. 58

    By pfft @ 57:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:
    By pfft @ 55:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 52:
    RE: pfft @ 51 – Since when do we judge things by whether they are popular?

    you’re are right. the only number that matters is that in Mass 98% of the people have insurance. that is the only number that matters.

    No what matters is what it costs.

    http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1336254386/Massachusetts-struggles-to-rein-in-health-care-costs

    From article: “It�s a serious problem: Massachusetts boasts that 98 percent of its residents have health insurance, but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics would have known that would happen. Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. I will admit it’s falling apart in ways I wouldn’t expect, but it shouldn’t be too surprising that an unstable system would behave oddly.

    That’s the future of health care in the U.S. under Obamacare. Rapidly rising costs (even during periods of low inflation), followed by total collapse.

    COSTS ARE RISING ANYWAY! what we know about the present system is that it was so bad the people just couldn’t take it anymore.

    obamacare will add little to premiums. I posted that a long time ago./

    These two statements just prove you don’t have a clue. You think “costs are rising anyway” but you don’t understand why costs are rising. They are rising because so many people have insurance! How else can you explain double digit increases at a point in time where there’s low inflation?

    And that you posted “obamacare [sic] will add little to premiums” doesn’t refute what has already been occurring. Just saying something doesn’t refute what has been happening already–and we’re just getting started.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  59. 59

    “Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. “you are lying. stop lying. the system is not falling apart.”but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”which is why romneycare was passed genius.about costs.

    Did you even read the article I linked? It talks about the hospitals losing millions of dollars, having to sell out to other organizations and generally fighting for survival. I don’t know what your definition of collapse is, but when health care providers are at threat of going under and no longer able to provide health care, that to me is the start of a collapse.

    As to the genius comment, how many years are you going to give Romneycare to control costs? It was passed many years ago, they now have the highest medical care costs in the nation, and you for some totally unexplained reason think that it’s working. The data is completely against you or else they wouldn’t have the highest medical care costs in the nation. And you think Obamacare will somehow have different results, based on nothing at all other than the claims of politicians. Being gullible is not a virtue.

    I guess though it is possible that Mass sometime soon won’t have the highest healthcare costs in the nation, but that will only be because Obamacare causes rapidly rising costs in other states!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  60. 60
    Dewams says:

    Mr. Krismer-

    You said: “I guess though it is possible that Mass sometime soon won’t have the highest healthcare costs in the nation, but that will only be because Obamacare causes rapidly rising costs in other states!”

    Although I am not a fan of Obamacare, the plan does offer a bit of hope when it comes to insurance costs.

    First, the individual mandate should bring more people into the insurance system who currently require little care and who pay nothing. That may allow insurance companies to reduce rate increases.

    Second, the plan sets the “medical loss ratio” higher than it is now in WA. For example, the current medical loss ratio for individual policies in WA is 0.72, which means that insurers must spend at least $0.72 of every dollar they take in on actual medical care. Obamacare raises the medical loss ratio to 0.80 for individuals. This should force insurance companies to waste fewer of our premium dollars.

    But, as I said, this is only a bit of hope: Single-payer systems tend to do a far better job when it comes to overhead costs, getting them down to around 10%.

    If you’re interested in how other countries manage healthcare, please take the hour or so to watch the PBS documentary “Sick Around the World.” It looks at the systems in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and a couple others. Well worth the time.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  61. 61

    RE: Dewams @ 60 – Thanks for that response. My concern about rising costs is more on the health care provider/drug company end. Even if insurance companies become 9% more efficient, that will likely be offset by having to pay 25% more for everything, because suddenly almost everyone has insurance, pushing the demand curve.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  62. 62
    pfft the wise says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 58:

    By pfft @ 57:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:
    By pfft @ 55:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 52:
    RE: pfft @ 51 – Since when do we judge things by whether they are popular?

    you’re are right. the only number that matters is that in Mass 98% of the people have insurance. that is the only number that matters.

    No what matters is what it costs.

    http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1336254386/Massachusetts-struggles-to-rein-in-health-care-costs

    From article: “ItÃ�¢ï¿½ï¿½s a serious problem: Massachusetts boasts that 98 percent of its residents have health insurance, but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics would have known that would happen. Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. I will admit it’s falling apart in ways I wouldn’t expect, but it shouldn’t be too surprising that an unstable system would behave oddly.

    That’s the future of health care in the U.S. under Obamacare. Rapidly rising costs (even during periods of low inflation), followed by total collapse.

    COSTS ARE RISING ANYWAY! what we know about the present system is that it was so bad the people just couldn’t take it anymore.

    obamacare will add little to premiums. I posted that a long time ago./

    These two statements just prove you don’t have a clue. You think “costs are rising anyway” but you don’t understand why costs are rising. They are rising because so many people have insurance! How else can you explain double digit increases at a point in time where there’s low inflation?

    And that you posted “obamacare [sic] will add little to premiums” doesn’t refute what has already been occurring. Just saying something doesn’t refute what has been happening already–and we’re just getting started.

    so 40,000 people a year die in the US because they don’t have insurance so you’re solution is…less insurance?

    you still all these months later haven’t told us why europe can cover EVERYONE yet half costs that are 1/2 of ours. what you are essentially saying is that in the US there is too much healthcare demand. if that is so why is there more demand in europe yet lower costs?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  63. 63
    pfft the wise says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 61:

    RE: Dewams @ 60 – Thanks for that response. My concern about rising costs is more on the health care provider/drug company end. Even if insurance companies become 9% more efficient, that will likely be offset by having to pay 25% more for everything, because suddenly almost everyone has insurance, pushing the demand curve.

    suddenly everyone doesn’t have insurance. we all have insurance except for to many it’s going to the high-cost emergency room long after they should have seen a doctor.

    I can’t believe you don’t know that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  64. 64
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 59:

    “Now, as covered in the article, they are scrambling to keep the system from collapsing entirely. “you are lying. stop lying. the system is not falling apart.”but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.”which is why romneycare was passed genius.about costs.

    As to the genius comment, how many years are you going to give Romneycare to control costs? It was passed many years ago, they now have the highest medical care costs in the nation, and you for some totally unexplained reason think that it’s working. The data is completely against you or else they wouldn’t have the highest medical care costs in the nation.

    I wish you would focus on caring about people as you do about costs.

    “you for some totally unexplained reason think that it’s working.”

    because I am a human being who thinks other people should have insurance. the only number that matters is that 98% of people in Mass have insurance.

    “As to the genius comment, how many years are you going to give Romneycare to control costs?”

    according to the article I posted costs were higher than expected but have come back in line with estimates.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  65. 65

    RE: pfft the wise @ 62 – Again you’re proving you have a memory problem. I’ve stated over and over and over why Europe is different.

    You really should be tested to try to diagnose the problem. I’m serious. You show some serious deficiencies in memory.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  66. 66

    By pfft @ 64:

    according to the article I posted costs were higher than expected but have come back in line with estimates.

    So when they enacted Romneycare, they predicted that 5 (or whatever) years into the program that they would have the highest health care costs in the country?

    I guess if you have extremely low standards, it’s easy to claim success. “Our goal is to be the worst in the country, and I’m confident we can meet that goal.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  67. 67

    By pfft @ 64:

    because I am a human being who thinks other people should have insurance. the only number that matters is that 98% of people in Mass have insurance.

    The difference between you and me I I think people should have health care, not that they should have insurance. I’m aware of the bad things insurance does to health care, like make it so expensive no one can afford it.

    In case you haven’t noticed, both people and companies are having a hard time paying for health insurance, and health insurance has been rising at double digit rates for years. You don’t understand why that’s occurring, so your solution is something that makes the problem worse, like what doctors often did to treat people 200 years ago when they didn’t understand.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  68. 68
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 65:

    RE: pfft the wise @ 62 – Again you’re proving you have a memory problem. I’ve stated over and over and over why Europe is different.

    could you care to restate them? what about canada and japan?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  69. 69
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 67:

    By pfft @ 64:
    because I am a human being who thinks other people should have insurance. the only number that matters is that 98% of people in Mass have insurance.

    The difference between you and me I I think people should have health care, not that they should have insurance.

    I think people should have insurance. I would have preferred medicare for all but we couldn’t get it. do have some better system that could have been implemented politically?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  70. 70
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 66:

    By pfft @ 64:
    according to the article I posted costs were higher than expected but have come back in line with estimates.

    So when they enacted Romneycare, they predicted that 5 (or whatever) years into the program that they would have the highest health care costs in the country?

    I guess if you have extremely low standards, it’s easy to claim success. “Our goal is to be the worst in the country, and I’m confident we can meet that goal.”

    I have no idea but the program is on target as far as costs go.

    Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  71. 71

    RE: pfft @ 69 – I was supporting death panels. ;-)

    Seriously, at this point I would prefer a government run system, with people able to buy supplemental insurance if they wish to get private treatment, with the government kicking in what it would have cost for them to have provided the same covered treatment. I would remove the income tax exemption for health insurance benefits, with some sort of delayed implementation to allow people to transition.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  72. 72
    Scotsman says:

    “The guest said, “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”

    It was all the more horrifying because the guest was not a conservative, not an opponent of Obamacare. This guest was an avid liberal, a partisan Democrat, and an enthusiastic supporter of government-run health care. He was endorsing death panels, not warning about them. He was saying death panels are a good thing. And it was even more horrifying because of who this guest was. This was no fringe lefty wearing a tinfoil hat, churning out underground newspapers in his parents’ basement. This was an economics professor at Princeton, one of the country’s most prestigious universities. This was the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, the highest honor the profession can bestow. This was a columnist for the New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the world.”

    ” This was Paul Krugman, live, on national television, endorsing government control over life and death. And while we’re at it, let’s raise taxes on those who are permitted to live.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269428/paul-krugman-prophet-socialism-donald-luskin

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  73. 73

    RE: Scotsman @ 72 – Death panels are a joke–wasn’t it a term Palin came up with?

    The thing is, one way or another society determines who gets what health care services. Insurance companies decide. Government decides. Money decides. To have true death panels would probably be a great improvement, but let’s take those in reverse order.

    If you have money to pay for your medical expenses, no one has a problem with you doing that, even if your situation is terminal. That’s your right, and about the only problem would be being defrauded by snake oil salesmen. Absent false hope, presumably you’ll spend your own money wisely.

    If government is deciding it, the problem is the people getting the service don’t care what it costs, because they aren’t paying for it directly, and the people providing the service want it to cost as much as possible. The only limiting factor is politicians and citizens having some desire to limit costs, but in practice that doesn’t work so well

    If insurance is deciding it, you still have people getting service that don’t care what it costs, because they aren’t paying for it, and you still have the people providing the service wanting it to cost as much as possible. The only one wanting to put a limit on it is the insurance company, but when they try you get politicians and citizens complaining because they don’t understand that the money insurance companies pay out isn’t just magically created. Politicians pass more and more laws requiring more and more things to be covered, and people use covered services as if they were practically free. This creates shortages, which leads to even higher costs. And the more people that have insurance, the more expensive it gets, increasing the cost of insurance for both business and individuals, and increasing the cost of medical care for those without insurance. Everyone loses except the health care providers and drug companies (and their shareholders).

    To make matters even worse, only two or three states expressly allow euthanasia. That means that we use modern technology at great expense to keep people alive in an intolerable state. As the baby boomers get even older, that problem will become even worse, and even more expensive (absent a change in views).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  74. 74
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 72:

    “The guest said, â��Some years down the pike, weâ��re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.â��

    It was all the more horrifying because the guest was not a conservative, not an opponent of Obamacare. This guest was an avid liberal, a partisan Democrat, and an enthusiastic supporter of government-run health care. He was endorsing death panels, not warning about them. He was saying death panels are a good thing. And it was even more horrifying because of who this guest was. This was no fringe lefty wearing a tinfoil hat, churning out underground newspapers in his parentsâ�� basement. This was an economics professor at Princeton, one of the countryâ��s most prestigious universities. This was the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, the highest honor the profession can bestow. This was a columnist for the New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the world.”

    ” This was Paul Krugman, live, on national television, endorsing government control over life and death. And while weâ��re at it, letâ��s raise taxes on those who are permitted to live.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269428/paul-krugman-prophet-socialism-donald-luskin

    I guess you can’t take a joke?

    you can’t get the rest of the world to take our healthcare system

    British fear ‘American-style’ healthcare system
    As leaders debate ways to reform healthcare, politicians repeatedly tell a worried public that Britain will not turn the National Health Service into an ‘American-style’ private system.
    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fg-britain-health-care-20110613,0,1237142.story

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  75. 75
    pfft says:

    don luskin is a moron and well-known krugman basher. here is one of his great hits.

    NOW WE KNOW FOR SURE THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS HAS PASSED Yep. Paul Krugman is writing about it…
    http://www.poorandstupid.com/2007_07_01_chronArchive.asp#4941247523281020244

    he said that in 2007.

    worst. call. ever.

    he’s a supply-side clown.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  76. 76
    pfft says:

    here is krugman’s version of “death panels.”

    But nobody is proposing that the government deny you the right to have whatever medical care you want at your own expense. We’re only talking about what medical care will be paid for by the government. And right-wingers, of all people, shouldn’t believe that everyone has the right to have whatever they want, at taxpayers’ expense.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/health-care-zombies/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  77. 77

    RE: pfft @ 76 – I’m not really sure what you think of that, but Krugman is right. No one is suggesting that the wealthy won’t be able to get whatever treatment they want to pay for. What’s at issue is what the rest of us get without having to pay a thing, and who pays that (government or an insurance company).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  78. 78
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 77:

    RE: pfft @ 76 What’s at issue is what the rest of us get without having to pay a thing, and who pays that (government or an insurance company).

    huh? we pay taxes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  79. 79

    By pfft @ 78:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 77:
    RE: pfft @ 76 What’s at issue is what the rest of us get without having to pay a thing, and who pays that (government or an insurance company).

    huh? we pay taxes.

    Correction, we all pay taxes, or at least the group is larger than any single insurance pool. And unless funded by a regressive tax, the amount paid is based on ability to pay. Both those things are far superior to an insurance system, where you can see some insurance pools so small they shut down because of government mandated changes (e.g. child only policies which shut down after the pre-existing conditions terms kicked in).

    In addition though, with government you also don’t have the same situation where politicians can just dictate coverage without a single concern about the cost. Politicians don’t think that the money for government benefits just magically appears. And you don’t get Al Gore appearing to have six figures of government money thrown at an experimental treatment which clearly isn’t covered. Spending is held far more in check.

    On the downside, government is less efficient than an insurance company, but that inefficiency is far less damaging to the economy than the inflation in health care costs caused by massive amounts of insurance.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  80. 80

    LOL. An unforeseen problem with Obamacare that needs to be fixed. The problem? Government would actually be paying for some coverage, rather than forcing others to pay for it.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  81. 81

    From the global thread:

    By Scotsman @ 75:

    Dang those unintended consequences:

    “A new report out yesterday from The Heritage Foundation shows private sector job creation dropped dramatically almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) into law.
    From the recessionâ��s low point in January 2009 until April 2010, when Obamacare went into effect, the private sector created about 67,600 jobs a month. After the president signed PPACA into law, that number slowed to a meager 6,400 jobs a month â�� a more than 90 percent decrease or less than one-tenth the previous rate.”

    I guess the good news is you don’t need a job if you can get your health care for free. This also brings to mind the old addage that socialiusm is great . . . until you run out of other people’s money.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/Economic-Recovery-Stalled-After-Obamacare-Passed

    Of course correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it is at a minimum a very interesting coincidence.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  82. 82
    David Losh says:

    My wife, and daughter will be returning from Peru this week. While they are there they are both getting dental work done by our cousins. The clinic is really nice, and the prices are going up all the time, but nothing like they are here. They have a a better than middle class clientèle.

    Our uncle is a urologist in Peru. He wanted to come here for training for many years. He is allowed to come, and go for conferences, but it is a short Visa period. Since he can now prescribe Viagra, and monitor the patients he is doing very well.

    We all tried to apply for our cousins, the dentists, to come here to the University of Washington for courses. That didn’t work out. They weren’t allowed to get Visas. Now that they are established they will also be allowed to come to conferences, maybe.

    There was nothing in the Visa process that would have cost the tax payers anything. These are professional people from professional back grounds.

    The United States health care system is set up for the extremely wealthy. The system gets worse every year, and yet we cling to the idea that the insurance industry is efficient.

    The mandate of the insurance industry is to generate profits.

    There is nothing in the insurance hand book that says they are required to provide care, or concern. We already have death panels. Your insurance adjuster decides if you live or die. an $8 an hour clerk can deny payment on any procedure, that may, or may not, be caught in over sight.

    Once again I advocate opening borders so we can get some competent doctors to work here in the United States. What we have is a joke. A few, very few, good doctors treating the extremely wealthy while the rest of us pay insurance companies to pay for it isn’t a system.

    Let’s take MRSA. Hospitals aren’t required to clean. If you look at the walls of almost any hospital room you will see they are wiped to a height of about six feet. Look at the cleaning staff. Do you really think that hospital room can be turned in a matter of hours, or minutes? Like a hotel room?

    The costs that are cut to obtain greater profits may cost you your life.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  83. 83
    Spherical says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 81 – What a shock. Heritage, the designated number-twister and logic-abuser for the right, put out a report that concludes Obama is so evil, he can destroy markets with the stroke of a pen, long before the law even takes effect! Don’t get me wrong– Heritage is very good at what they do. They hire smart people, put out professional looking reports, and as their conservative contributors demand they always come up with the “right answer” no matter what the data is.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  84. 84

    RE: Spherical @ 83 – I don’t think there’s much doubt that job creation weakened after getting stronger. But as I noted, correlation doesn’t equal causation, so to be clearer, blaming it on the passage of Obamacare is pretty weak based just on that. I will note, however, that Boeing has made claims that it will be affecting their employment.

    Still, President Obama in his first two years wasn’t exactly business friendly. So blaming him in general, and not just Obamacare, for the lack of new jobs (as opposed to the loss of jobs earlier) isn’t exactly over the top.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  85. 85

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 84:

    I will note, however, that Boeing has made claims that it will be affecting their employment..

    My recollection was bad on that. Their claim was that it was causing them to raise the cost of insurance for employees. After Sen. Murray objected to that announcement during the election, Boeing backtracked.

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2010/10/18/citing-health-care-law-boeing-asks-employees-to-pay-more/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  86. 86
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 84:

    RE: Spherical @ 83 – I don’t think there’s much doubt that job creation weakened after getting stronger. But as I noted, correlation doesn’t equal causation, so to be clearer, blaming it on the passage of Obamacare is pretty weak based just on that. I will note, however, that Boeing has made claims that it will be affecting their employment.

    Still, President Obama in his first two years wasn’t exactly business friendly. So blaming him in general, and not just Obamacare, for the lack of new jobs (as opposed to the loss of jobs earlier) isn’t exactly over the top.

    obama has bent over backwards for business. he gave the banks money. he bailed out GM. He hasn’t prosecuted wall street.
    he negotiated with the drug companies before HCR even started.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  87. 87

    By pfft @ 86:

    obama has bent over backwards for business. he gave the banks money. he bailed out GM. He hasn’t prosecuted wall street.
    he negotiated with the drug companies before HCR even started.

    I was referring to his rhetoric. You’re correct in that his rhetoric hasn’t always (ever?) matched his actions. I’m not sure businesses though are willing to wait to figure that out, or how long they are willing to wait to make sure that doesn’t change.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  88. 88

    This is a good example of why insurance rates go up. Apparently now there will be no co-pays on birth control pills.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns/health-health_care/

    The money has to come from somewhere, and that source is insurance premiums. But once again we have government acting like it’s a free source–that they’re just providing free benefits to people.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  89. 89
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 88:

    This is a good example of why insurance rates go up. Apparently now there will be no co-pays on birth control pills.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns/health-health_care/

    The money has to come from somewhere, and that source is insurance premiums. But once again we have government acting like it’s a free source–that they’re just providing free benefits to people.

    or they are not discriminating against women?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  90. 90

    RE: pfft @ 89 – Not sure what you’re saying, but I would think the increased costs would only affect women. Individual policies typically have four rates for different age groups–male smoker, male non-smoker, female smoker, female non-smoker. I’m not sure how group policies work, but I assume it’s similar.

    BTW, this is also a case where the uninsured will be affected, because the cost of birth control pills will likely rise as a result of this.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  91. 91

    The 11th Circuit has found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, but did not throw out all of Obamacare, as the lower court had done.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44121956/ns/politics-white_house/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  92. 92

    Interesting article on the plans of employers to drop employee coverage, even if that means fines. Also, how coverage levels in Mass. are now about the same as when their law was enacted.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/24/national/a060732D03.DTL

    And people wonder why this is a jobless recovery.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  93. 93
  94. 94

    RE: pfft @ 93 – If your definition of “working” is simply more insured, you would expect that, given the ability to stay on your parents’ policy. I would note though that part of that increase could be due to a slightly better economy (more jobs added).

    That definition of working though doesn’t mean that it isn’t causing medical costs to skyrocket, which will ultimately be the real test, and IMHO, the real failing of Obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  95. 95
    pftt says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 94:

    RE: pfft @ 93 – If your definition of “working” is simply more insured, you would expect that, given the ability to stay on your parents’ policy. I would note though that part of that increase could be due to a slightly better economy (more jobs added).

    That definition of working though doesn’t mean that it isn’t causing medical costs to skyrocket, which will ultimately be the real test, and IMHO, the real failing of Obamacare.

    I didn’t realize that costs were “sky-rocketing.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  96. 96

    RE: pftt @ 95 – You have a bad memory. That’s detailed in this thread. Insurance rates have been skyrocketing.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  97. 97
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 96:

    RE: pftt @ 95 – You have a bad memory. That’s detailed in this thread. Insurance rates have been skyrocketing.

    ah insurance rates. that’s big business gouging. they are making record profits. medical costs in countries that cover everyone have much lower medical costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  98. 98

    RE: pfft @ 97 – Insurers are not making record profits. Medical providers and drug companies may be. That’s covered in these health care threads too.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  99. 99
    Scotsman says:

    Let me get this straight . . . …
    We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care
    plan we are forced to purchase and
    fined if we don’t,
    Which purportedly covers at least
    ten million more people,
    without adding a single new doctor,
    but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
    written by a committee whose chairman
    says he doesn’t understand it,
    passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but
    exempted themselves from it,
    and signed by a President who smokes,
    with funding administered by a treasury chief who
    didn’t pay his taxes,
    for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any
    benefits take effect,
    by a government which has
    already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
    all to be overseen by a surgeon general
    who is obese,
    and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!

    ‘What the hell could
    possibly go wrong?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  100. 100
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 99

    I don’t know, but this is the compromise bill that Republicans wanted. It benefits the insurance companies, and will be challenged until it becomes universal health care, like all civilized countries have.

    As for the doctors, you have hit on a point well taken by the health care industry. A doctor comes out of the university system about $500k in debt. It costs another $250K to set up a practice. The lack of doctors also drives up the cost of health care by supply, and demand. That there is your rationing also.

    We need free trade, training, and education of doctors, globally. Health Care can be fixed, but the Republicans showed it can be fixed here. Global pressure will have to be applied on the United States to get in line with the rest of the world on health issues.

    We can not be allowed to kill off thousands or millions of people so some drug companies enjoy massive profits. The same goes for medical technology. It isn’t that we have, or produce anything that the rest of the world doesn’t or can’t. It’s that we hand out these patent rights to any one who presents a new idea. If it is “discovered” here the company gets huge financial benefits. If the same technology is developed in the civilized world it is given credit then becomes public domain.

    We don’t have a three trillion dollar medical industry because we do anything special. We just enforce our will on the rest of the world so they are forced to pay us, for doing less.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  101. 101

    By David Losh @ 100:

    The lack of doctors also drives up the cost of health care by supply, and demand. That there is your rationing also.

    A little Losh gem there. Part of the reason that we pay so much more is doctors are severely restricted in this country. If we opened it up, price of services would drop.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  102. 102

    The President is cancelling part of Obamacare because it’s unworkable. What a shock! The people who drafted the thing didn’t know what they were doing. ;-)

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/14/8325174-obama-administration-halts-part-of-health-care-law

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  103. 103
    pfft says:

    individual mandate is very popular.

    Individual Mandate Repeal Initiative Fail
    http://blog.hcfama.org/2011/11/23/individual-mandate-repeal-initiative-fail/

    it’s like people want health insurance or something.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  104. 104
    Scotsman says:

    Why the U.S. will be unable to contain costs and health care will fail in the near future:

    http://www.oftwominds.com/photos10/CDC08.jpg

    http://www.oftwominds.com/photos07/global-BMI.gif

    The result of the above:

    http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2011/healthcare-costs-US.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  105. 105

    RE: pfft @ 3 – The individual mandate is initially very attractive. I even liked the idea at first because it dealt with the free-rider problem.

    The problem is, even if it’s a good idea, that doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. And in saying that please note that it might be constitutional for say MA to impose it on its citizens, but not the US on its citizens. That, btw, is really the claim that Romney should be making so that he doesn’t appear to be as big of a flip-flopper as what he really is.

    The second problem is that it’s not really a good idea, because it will lead to the inflation that I’m concerned about. That problem outweighs the free-rider problem, IMHO.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  106. 106

    RE: Scotsman @ 4 – I would question the first graph, putting WA ahead of AZ.

    But I would agree, weight is a problem.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  107. 107
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 105:

    RE: pfft @ 3

    The second problem is that it’s not really a good idea, because it will lead to the inflation that I’m concerned about.

    you don’t cite any facts though.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  108. 108

    By pfft @ 7:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 105:
    RE: pfft @ 3

    The second problem is that it’s not really a good idea, because it will lead to the inflation that I’m concerned about.

    you don’t cite any facts though.

    First, you’ve just forgotten. Second, You just need to understand basic economics. When people don’t care what they pay for things, prices skyrocket.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  109. 109

    RE: pfft @ 107 – As to the “you’ve forgotten” comment, look at posts 18 and 56 in this thread.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  110. 110
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 108:

    By pfft @ 7:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 105:
    RE: pfft @ 3

    The second problem is that it’s not really a good idea, because it will lead to the inflation that I’m concerned about.

    you don’t cite any facts though.

    First, you’ve just forgotten. Second, You just need to understand basic economics. When people don’t care what they pay for things, prices skyrocket.

    why does europe cover everyone at half the per-capita cost?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  111. 111
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 9:

    RE: pfft @ 107 – As to the “you’ve forgotten” comment, look at posts 18 and 56 in this thread.

    so what? the start-up costs were more than expected. big deal in the context of saving lives.

    healthcare companies are just doing what they always have done and what got us into this mess- raise prices.

    insurance costs for medicare are growing at less of rate than the private insurance industry. it’s easy to see why. medicare doesn’t have the massive overhead administrative costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  112. 112

    By pfft @ 110:

    why does europe cover everyone at half the per-capita cost?

    You really do need to have your memory checked. We’ve discussed this several times.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  113. 113

    By pfft @ 11:

    so what? the start-up costs were more than expected. big deal in the context of saving lives.

    healthcare companies are just doing what they always have done and what got us into this mess- raise prices.

    insurance costs for medicare are growing at less of rate than the private insurance industry. it’s easy to see why. medicare doesn’t have the massive overhead administrative costs.

    It’s not start up costs. They went from having the highest health care costs in the country to having even higher health care costs. Just what standard economic theory would predict.

    And yes, the health care companies (providers) will want to raise prices. More insurance will make that easy for them, because more consumers no longer care what the services cost.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  114. 114
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 113:

    By pfft @ 11:
    so what? the start-up costs were more than expected. big deal in the context of saving lives.

    healthcare companies are just doing what they always have done and what got us into this mess- raise prices.

    insurance costs for medicare are growing at less of rate than the private insurance industry. it’s easy to see why. medicare doesn’t have the massive overhead administrative costs.

    It’s not start up costs. They went from having the highest health care costs in the country to having even higher health care costs. Just what standard economic theory would predict.

    And yes, the health care companies (providers) will want to raise prices. More insurance will make that easy for them, because more consumers no longer care what the services cost.

    97% of people now have health insurance. who gives a blank?

    And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

    http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-26/lifestyle/29706413_1_overhaul-mitt-romney-health-care/2

    another success.

    Obama health care law shrinks Medicare ‘doughnut hole’
    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8446162

    Remember Mass is just one state and it’s the wrong system. the best system would be medicare for all. the benefits of Mass’ system will show up in healthier citizens when they get to medicare. that probably won’t be captured in the cost picture.

    “They went from having the highest health care costs in the country to having even higher health care costs.”

    yeah no healthcare increases until the government came a long…

    “More insurance will make that easy for them, because more consumers no longer care what the services cost.”

    you’ve yet to prove that. why does europe have half the per-capita costs? why are medicare costs rising slower than private insurance costs? why is the VA one of the best systems. remember that private insurance only wants to cover the young and healthy. imagine if seniors or veterans had to buy insurance? oh we know what that looks like which is why we have medicare and the VA.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  115. 115

    The reason you give a blank is health care already takes up too many of our society’s resources. If health care starts taking up higher and higher percentages, eventually the economy will totally collapse and no one will have anything!

    You remind me of the politicians in California who tried to keep electricity prices low, and when that didn’t work out raised the prices mainly on businesses in California. That left the citizens of California with low electric rates but fewer jobs as businesses reacted Not a good trade off: Saving $10 a month on electricity but losing a $45,000 a year job.

    You can provide health care services without insurance. And that’s why health care expenses are a lot less in a lot of other countries.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  116. 116
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    By pfft @ 110:
    why does europe cover everyone at half the per-capita cost?

    You really do need to have your memory checked. We’ve discussed this several times.

    so what is the answer? why is our system which denies so many care cost twice as much and covers not as many people? by your logic it should be reversed. our system should cost less.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  117. 117

    RE: pfft @ 116 – I don’t know why you insist on going over the same points over and over and over.

    A system where government has to pay for things will not likely be a system where legislatures annually add more and more costly services. So for example, the government is not likely to pay for acupuncture or aroma therapy. In contrast, when an insurance company is present, the government has no trouble at all requiring them to pay for things. That alone makes an insurance system more expensive, even if you don’t accept the future inflation argument.

    Obamacare is a perfect example of that. The health care legislation could have provided that government pay for everyone’s health care. But that would have required some means of paying for it! So rather than do that, they simply provide that everyone has to get insurance so that insurance companies have to pay for the care. It’s a hidden tax, and the hidden tax is larger than what the real tax would have been, because the government most likely would not have had a program paying for acupuncture.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  118. 118

    Somewhere in these health care thread Pfft cited to a report that claimed Obamacare would reduce overall health care costs (as opposed to government costs). I pointed out that the study indicated its own shortcomings in that area, because they had no basis on which to calculate the future inflation caused by Obamacare.

    Well these two things reminded me of that.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403471/december-01-2011/12-1-11-in–60-seconds (Cobert Report on government study on losses due to counterfeiting.)

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/194203/government_says_data_estimating_piracy_losses_is_unsubstantiated.html (PC World report on same issue.)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  119. 119

    The Supreme Court set the schedule for oral argument. They are taking this very seriously, with three days of oral argument. The first day will focus on whether the action is premature. Somewhat surprising to me is that on the last day they want 90 minutes of argument on whether the whole thing should be thrown out if the mandate is thrown out.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=143958967

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  120. 120
    pfft says:

    sorry kary, your way of controlling health costs has fallen apart…

    “Skin in the Game” Fails As a Health Care Cost Control Idea
    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/09/27/skin-in-the-game-is-failure-as-a-health-care-cost-control-idea/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  121. 121

    RE: pfft @ 20 – Terribly incomplete data. Like in the housing price issue I just commented on for one of your posts, you can’t look at just one factor. Other factors can override it. For example, over that same time period, how many states have imposed more and more required coverages on insurance policies? That’s highly inflationary, but not accounted for at all in the stats given. Or what about things like Viagra, which I don’t think even existed in 1999? It’s not free.

    Also, the first graph doesn’t even cover what I’m talking about. I’m talking about paying for services, not insurance.

    As to the author of that piece, all I can say is he/she doesn’t understand how things work, or they are purposefully trying to deceive.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  122. 122

    On your incomplete data, the number of people with insurance dropped for the first time in 23 years in 2009, dropping by about 2 million people. That same year medicare/medicaid increased by over 6 million, so overall there were still about 4 million more people who didn’t care what things cost.

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2010/september/16/uninsured-census-statistics.aspx

    Plot that against your increasing health insurance premiums in the article you linked, and you’ll see a clear correlation between more insurance and higher prices. (23 years of more and more insurance and increases in cost all of the years covered in the article). Again though, that’s not the sole factor raising prices.

    And BTW, you can’t look at percentage insured figures. You have to look at the number insured. In setting their pricing, service providers and drug companies don’t care about the percentage that have insurance, they care about the number of people which have insurance.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  123. 123
    findalittlehome says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 101

    The reason we pay so much more in this country is that we have a for-profit health care insurance industry whose profits are obscene.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  124. 124

    By findalittlehome @ 123:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 101

    The reason we pay so much more in this country is that we have a for-profit health care insurance industry whose profits are obscene.

    Cause and effect.

    Too much insurance causes obscene profits. Do you think those profits would exist if people were paying their own medical bills?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  125. 125
    Scotsman says:

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=200263

    “The Federal Government went from spending $53 billion on health care (all forms) in 1980 to over $800 billion last year. Private insurance costs have risen by some 9% annually for the last 30 years. The Federal Government’s spending has tracked this rate of expansion as well, which means that the commonly-held claim that this is all about “more elderly people on the government tit” is false; the working population is roughly constant in age.

    The Republican Party (and the “Tea Party” contingent within it) have repeatedly stated that “nobody over 50″ is going to have their Federal Government medical benefits tampered with. Roughly, your life expectancy in the US is 85. This means that if you’re 50 today you have some 30 years of life left.

    At a 9% escalation per year your medical costs — whether insurance or government spending — will multiply by a factor of 13.3 over the next 30 years.

    That is, if you spend $600 a month now, assuming you did not get older or sicker, you would spend $7,980 a month in 30 years on your health insurance, or some $95,760 per year.

    The Federal Government will spend not $800 billion but $10.64 trillion on health care at this rate in 30 years.

    Neither of those things is going to happen; the money does not exist.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  126. 126
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 125:

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=200263

    “The Federal Government went from spending $53 billion on health care (all forms) in 1980 to over $800 billion last year. Private insurance costs have risen by some 9% annually for the last 30 years. The Federal Government’s spending has tracked this rate of expansion as well, which means that the commonly-held claim that this is all about “more elderly people on the government tit” is false; the working population is roughly constant in age.

    The Republican Party (and the “Tea Party” contingent within it) have repeatedly stated that “nobody over 50″ is going to have their Federal Government medical benefits tampered with. Roughly, your life expectancy in the US is 85. This means that if you’re 50 today you have some 30 years of life left.

    At a 9% escalation per year your medical costs — whether insurance or government spending — will multiply by a factor of 13.3 over the next 30 years.

    That is, if you spend $600 a month now, assuming you did not get older or sicker, you would spend $7,980 a month in 30 years on your health insurance, or some $95,760 per year.

    The Federal Government will spend not $800 billion but $10.64 trillion on health care at this rate in 30 years.

    Neither of those things is going to happen; the money does not exist.

    don’t listen to karl. he is one of the tea party people. he bragged that he got a gavel from newt gingrich.

    btw- healthcare costs rose just 3.9% last year.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  127. 127
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 24:

    By findalittlehome @ 123:
    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 101

    The reason we pay so much more in this country is that we have a for-profit health care insurance industry whose profits are obscene.

    Cause and effect.

    Too much insurance causes obscene profits. Do you think those profits would exist if people were paying their own medical bills?

    tens of millions are and it isn’t helping at all.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  128. 128

    RE: pfft @ 27 – You really don’t understand economics. During the real estate boom, tens of millions of people weren’t buying real estate. Actually hundreds of millions of people. That didn’t stop prices from rising.

    If you have even 50% of the people with traditional insurance, they will drive the market. The more you have, the more they will drive it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  129. 129

    I love how this argument turns everything on its head. The Canadian system of health care is somehow better because you’re only covered if you’re in Canada!

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10274212-iconic-skiers-death-points-out-us-health-gap

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  130. 130

    Yet another example of a politician treating money from insurance companies as being “free money!”

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017470954_apusbirthcontrolpolitics.html

    Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama announced he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free contraception directly from health insurance companies.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  131. 131

    And the same policy provides yet another example of President Obama telling companies how to run their businesses.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/usa-contraceptives-aetna-idUSL2E8DAEKD20120210

    “When asked about the insurer concerns, the White House cited a report from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department that estimates the costs of providing free birth control can be offset by reducing expenses associated with unintended pregnancies.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  132. 132

    After thinking it over, the Catholic Bishops are opposed to the compromise.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577217181415407806.html

    Not too big of a surprise. Given that there was no real proposal, and instead just an idea floated, the cost of the coverage could have possibly been built into the premiums these entities would have had to have paid. So the result would not be any different under the compromise. Or if it was, a larger group of insureds would be paying for the coverage that they object to. If you object to something on religious grounds, does it matter who is paying for it? That would sort of take the legs out from under their position on abortion.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  133. 133
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 130:

    Yet another example of a politician treating money from insurance companies as being “free money!”

    no it’s called providing basic healthcare.

    don’t look now kary.

    New Study: Health Care Costs Fall When Poor Get Health Care Coverage
    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-study-health-care-costs-fall-when

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  134. 134
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:

    RE: pfft @ 27 – You really don’t understand economics. During the real estate boom, tens of millions of people weren’t buying real estate. Actually hundreds of millions of people. That didn’t stop prices from rising.

    If you have even 50% of the people with traditional insurance, they will drive the market. The more you have, the more they will drive it.

    home sales were rising…the number of people insured has increased steadily by millions.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  135. 135

    RE: pfft @ 33 – That’s based on billing, not cost. ER billing is a joke, and has little or nothing to do with cost.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  136. 136

    By pfft @ 34:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:
    RE: pfft @ 27 – You really don’t understand economics. During the real estate boom, tens of millions of people weren’t buying real estate. Actually hundreds of millions of people. That didn’t stop prices from rising.

    If you have even 50% of the people with traditional insurance, they will drive the market. The more you have, the more they will drive it.

    home sales were rising…the number of people insured has increased steadily by millions.

    Nice non-responsive argument which indicates further you simply don’t understand economics.

    But out of curiosity, what do you think has been happening with health care costs while the number of insured have increased? What statistic do you have indicating that the health care costs of the entire country have been going down? Oh wait, they haven’t been! What! They’ve been increasing at a rate much higher than inflation? What could possibly be causing that rise? /sarc

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  137. 137
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 135:

    RE: pfft @ 33 – That’s based on billing, not cost. ER billing is a joke, and has little or nothing to do with cost.

    ha ha. really? I don’t think you really understand how goods are produced. this means there is a scarcity of ER resources…

    in the end it doesn’t matter you still have to pay. just because the cost of producing gas is a lot lower than the cost at the pump doesn’t mean the price at the pump isn’t the price you pay.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  138. 138

    RE: pfft @ 37 – Completely none responsive.

    You claimed something showed costs were going down. I pointed out they were just looking at billings and that billings are different than costs. You then respond with total gibberish that has nothing to do with what something costs to society, but instead what people are billed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  139. 139
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 138:

    RE: pfft @ 37 – Completely none responsive.

    You claimed something showed costs were going down. I pointed out they were just looking at billings and that billings are different than costs. You then respond with total gibberish that has nothing to do with what something costs to society, but instead what people are billed.

    huh?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  140. 140

    RE: pfft @ 39 – This is pretty simple stuff.

    You go to a Lexus dealer and the MSRP on the vehicle is $60,000. That doesn’t mean that it cost $60,000 to build the car.

    You’re looking at hospital billings and confusing those with costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  141. 141
    pfft says:

    Obamacare is going to be in front of the Supreme Court…should be awesome.

    I can’t wait for the right’s reaction when it’s declared constitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  142. 142
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 40:

    RE: pfft @ 39 – This is pretty simple stuff.

    You go to a Lexus dealer and the MSRP on the vehicle is $60,000. That doesn’t mean that it cost $60,000 to build the car.

    You’re looking at hospital billings and confusing those with costs.

    it doesn’t matter if you still have to pay $60,000.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  143. 143

    RE: pfft @ 42 – Maybe that’s the different between you and me. I’m concerned Obamacare will bankruptcy the country because too many resources will be diverted to healthcare. You’re focused on the individual, and think that as long as they have health care coverage they’re okay, ignoring the impact of the economy collapsing on its own weight.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  144. 144

    By pfft @ 41:

    Obamacare is going to be in front of the Supreme Court…should be awesome.

    I can’t wait for the right’s reaction when it’s declared constitutional.

    I never try to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but if the individual mandate is declared constitutional, God help us all. That would be a huge expansion of federal power, and I’m afraid what might follow.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  145. 145
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 143:

    RE: pfft @ 42 – Maybe that’s the different between you and me. I’m concerned Obamacare will bankruptcy the country because too many resources will be diverted to healthcare. You’re focused on the individual, and think that as long as they have health care coverage they’re okay, ignoring the impact of the economy collapsing on its own weight.

    link please? you know that healthcare spending is is already on an unsustainable path right?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  146. 146
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 44:

    By pfft @ 41:
    Obamacare is going to be in front of the Supreme Court…should be awesome.

    I can’t wait for the right’s reaction when it’s declared constitutional.

    I never try to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but if the individual mandate is declared constitutional, God help us all. That would be a huge expansion of federal power, and I’m afraid what might follow.

    huge expansion how? it will most likely be ruled constitutional.

    if it is ruled unconstitutional then basically everything the government has ever passed will be declared unconstitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  147. 147

    By pfft @ 45:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 143:
    RE: pfft @ 42 – Maybe that’s the different between you and me. I’m concerned Obamacare will bankruptcy the country because too many resources will be diverted to healthcare. You’re focused on the individual, and think that as long as they have health care coverage they’re okay, ignoring the impact of the economy collapsing on its own weight.

    link please? you know that healthcare spending is is already on an unsustainable path right?

    We’ve gone over this many times. The more insurance the less people care what anything costs. The less people care what anything costs the more they use (increased demand). Increased demand means higher prices.

    The spending is on an unsustainable path because there was already too much insurance in the system, at least too much insurance which provided too much coverage (the traditional plan).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  148. 148

    By pfft @ 46:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 44:
    By pfft @ 41:
    Obamacare is going to be in front of the Supreme Court…should be awesome.

    I can’t wait for the right’s reaction when it’s declared constitutional.

    I never try to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but if the individual mandate is declared constitutional, God help us all. That would be a huge expansion of federal power, and I’m afraid what might follow.

    huge expansion how? it will most likely be ruled constitutional.

    if it is ruled unconstitutional then basically everything the government has ever passed will be declared unconstitutional.

    Except for auto insurance, which only applies to people who undertake a voluntary activity, the government has seldom if ever required people to enter the marketplace and buy things, or be punished. Rather than regulate commerce, they are creating commerce.

    If they can do this, then Cash for Clunkers was an incredible waste of money. They should have just fined everyone $3,000 if they kept a car that would have qualified for CFCs.

    They could probably easily do this as a tax, with a government program providing the benefits. That isn’t what they did.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  149. 149
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 147:

    By pfft @ 45:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 143:
    RE: pfft @ 42 – Maybe that’s the different between you and me. I’m concerned Obamacare will bankruptcy the country because too many resources will be diverted to healthcare. You’re focused on the individual, and think that as long as they have health care coverage they’re okay, ignoring the impact of the economy collapsing on its own weight.

    link please? you know that healthcare spending is is already on an unsustainable path right?

    We’ve gone over this many times. The more insurance the less people care what anything costs. The less people care what anything costs the more they use (increased demand). Increased demand means higher prices.

    prove. you’re wrong though. most healthcare spending is based on a very limited number of people. this won’t control costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  150. 150

    RE: pfft @ 149 – We’ve gone over this so many times. I’m getting tired of it. But I don’t know how you consider over 50% of the population to be a very limited number of people. Look what under 10% of the population did to real estate prices in 2007.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  151. 151
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 150:

    RE: pfft @ 149 – We’ve gone over this so many times. I’m getting tired of it. But I don’t know how you consider over 50% of the population to be a very limited number of people. Look what under 10% of the population did to real estate prices in 2007.

    your position wrong by these two points.

    1. medicare costs are growing slower than private insurance costs so you are wrong on that point.

    2. 5% of people represent 50% of healthcare spending. No amount of rationing through the market is going to solve that.

    5% of patients account for half of health care spending
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-11/health-care-costs-11/52505562/1

    lastly most healthcare systems have an all you can eat system and they half 1/2 the costs.

    game over.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  152. 152

    RE: pfft @ 151 – LOL.

    First, you’re going to have to explain how something rising slower than the insurance system proves that more insurance isn’t going to result in more problems. I think you have that proof backwards. It’s proof of my position.

    Second, that 5% of patients account for 50% of costs also doesn’t prove anything, other than that when people don’t have to pay a lot of money gets spent. Again, that’s my point.

    BTW, you obviously don’t understand rationing if you don’t think rationing would solve that problem. I’m sorry to be cold hearted, but at some point society needs to realize that you can’t keep your parent alive on a respirator and feeding tube indefinitely at no cost to you, just because you can’t bring yourself to say goodbye. If someone wants to torture their parents in such a manner, they should do so on their own dime. Unfortunately today it’s the taxpayer that often picks that cost up.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  153. 153

    One more reason Obamacare might be unconstitutional is the revenue side. The tax or penalty for not having coverage might not be constitutional.

    Without that the individual mandate disappears, and the rest of it then becomes unworkable (or really the illusion that it is workable completely disappears).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  154. 154
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 152:

    RE: pfft @ 151 – LOL.

    First, you’re going to have to explain how something rising slower than the insurance system proves that more insurance isn’t going to result in more problems. I think you have that proof backwards. It’s proof of my position.

    Second, that 5% of patients account for 50% of costs also doesn’t prove anything, other than that when people don’t have to pay a lot of money gets spent. Again, that’s my point.

    no you don’t seem to understand. for 95% of the people who are treated shopping around won’t make a difference. cost cutting won’t matter. for those whom we do spend a lot of money on they can’t shop around if they have a heart attack.

    your math simply does not add up.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  155. 155
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 53:

    One more reason Obamacare might be unconstitutional is the revenue side. The tax or penalty for not having coverage might not be constitutional.

    Without that the individual mandate disappears, and the rest of it then becomes unworkable (or really the illusion that it is workable completely disappears).

    the penalty will be ruled constitutional because the government has laws saying you can’t turn people away at ERs. since this is law even if you don’t have insurance someday you may need medical treatment that the state may have to pay for.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  156. 156

    RE: pfft @ 154 – Your English doesn’t add up.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  157. 157

    By pfft @ 55:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 53:
    One more reason Obamacare might be unconstitutional is the revenue side. The tax or penalty for not having coverage might not be constitutional.

    Without that the individual mandate disappears, and the rest of it then becomes unworkable (or really the illusion that it is workable completely disappears).

    the penalty will be ruled constitutional because the government has laws saying you can’t turn people away at ERs. since this is law even if you don’t have insurance someday you may need medical treatment that the state may have to pay for.

    That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the power of the government to tax you. There are limits on the power of the government to tax you, which is why we have a Constitutional Amendment allowing the income tax. But the government is trying to treat this penalty different than the income tax, which is what makes it constitutionally suspect.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  158. 158

    Here’s something on the tax issue.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/07/wsj-the–1.html

    I’m not saying the analysis in the link is the correct analysis, but that the issue is there.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  159. 159
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 156:

    RE: pfft @ 154 – Your English doesn’t add up.

    Better than you logic. Pointing out grammar mistakes is so 2005…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  160. 160
    pfft says:

    Legal experts: Court won’t strike down ‘Obamacare’
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10867648-legal-experts-court-wont-strike-down-obamacare

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  161. 161

    By pfft @ 59:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 156:
    RE: pfft @ 154 – Your English doesn’t add up.

    Better than you logic. Pointing out grammar mistakes is so 2005…

    I’m not pointing out grammar errors. I’m pointing out that your words don’t mean anything. It’s just a bunch of words put together that don’t make thoughts. I have no idea what you were even trying to say.

    Your sentences were like this one: Building fence dog run car rabbit sunny.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  162. 162

    RE: pfft @ 60 – Are you really that gullible? You think there are no legal experts in the country that think Obamacare will be struck down?

    Reminds me of an article I wasted my time reading today. Some reporter decided that the Justices wouldn’t avoid a decision based on that tax injunction statute (which BTW, if different than the constitutional issue I’ve been mentioning). There are two things lawyers know very well: 1. You can’t tell what a judge is going to do by what they ask and say at an oral argument; and 2. You shouldn’t even try to get an interpretation of a legal issue from press reports.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  163. 163
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 161:

    By pfft @ 59:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 156:
    RE: pfft @ 154 – Your English doesn’t add up.

    Better than you logic. Pointing out grammar mistakes is so 2005…

    I’m not pointing out grammar errors. I’m pointing out that your words don’t mean anything. It’s just a bunch of words put together that don’t make thoughts. I have no idea what you were even trying to say.

    Your sentences were like this one: Building fence dog run car rabbit sunny.

    of course you don’t understand what I am talking about…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  164. 164
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 62:

    RE: pfft @ 60 – Are you really that gullible? You think there are no legal experts in the country that think Obamacare will be struck down?

    Reminds me of an article I wasted my time reading today. Some reporter decided that the Justices wouldn’t avoid a decision based on that tax injunction statute (which BTW, if different than the constitutional issue I’ve been mentioning). There are two things lawyers know very well: 1. You can’t tell what a judge is going to do by what they ask and say at an oral argument; and 2. You shouldn’t even try to get an interpretation of a legal issue from press reports.

    you didn’t really read did you? I did not say that you couldn’t find an expert that said it was unconstitutional.

    National Journal surveyed former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the high court about the health care law, and the consensus was that the Affordable Care is likely to prevail.

    the problem clearly is you and not me.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  165. 165

    Speaking of not understanding, I don’t know how this could have possibly been more clear!

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 162:

    2. You shouldn’t even try to get an interpretation of a legal issue from press reports.

    Translation: Your article is worthless.

    Just out of curiosity, how many articles in the press did you read that predicted that the Supreme Court would find the Second Amendment to be an individual right? They almost all focused on the single word “militia” and got it wrong, probably quoting many of the same law professors as experts. You know who else largely made that mistake? Democrats. Will history repeat itself with healthcare? Who knows. It will be a close decision, and it wouldn’t surprise me that it will turn on something hardly discussed, like the tax issue I’ve been mentioning.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  166. 166

    If anyone is interested, here is a copy of the transcript of the hearing today, dealing mainly with the tax injunction statute.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  167. 167
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 165:

    Speaking of not understanding, I don’t know how this could have possibly been more clear!

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 162:

    2. You shouldn’t even try to get an interpretation of a legal issue from press reports.

    Translation: Your article is worthless.

    Just out of curiosity, how many articles in the press did you read that predicted that the Supreme Court would find the Second Amendment to be an individual right? They almost all focused on the single word “militia” and got it wrong, probably quoting many of the same law professors as experts. You know who else largely made that mistake? Democrats. Will history repeat itself with healthcare? Who knows. It will be a close decision, and it wouldn’t surprise me that it will turn on something hardly discussed, like the tax issue I’ve been mentioning.

    it was not a press report. You can’t read. Nothing to do with the media or media accounts regarding arguments made before the courts.

    National Journal surveyed former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the high court about the health care law, and the consensus was that the Affordable Care is likely to prevail.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  168. 168

    RE: pfft @ 67 – Again, compare what you read in the press about the Second Amendment to what you’re reading today about Obamacare.

    The press is largely liberal. Law professors are largely liberal. The result you’re seeing is not surprising. It also means nothing. What really matters is the opinion of one to three Supreme Court Justices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  169. 169
  170. 170

    Here’s today’s transcript:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

    The part starting at about page 7 involving the burial insurance hypothetical is pretty funny.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  171. 171

    From the transcript:

    JUSTICE BREYER: I’m just picking on something. I’d like to just — if it turned out there was some terrible epidemic sweeping the United States, and we couldn’t say that more than 40 or 50 percent — I can make the number as high as I want — but the — the — you’d say the Federal Government doesn’t have the power to get people inoculated, to require them to be inoculated, because that’s just statistical

    Amazing how some people thing that the federal government can do anything it wants. Scary that it’s a Supreme Court Justice who thinks that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  172. 172
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 168:

    RE: pfft @ 67 – Again, compare what you read in the press about the Second Amendment to what you’re reading today about Obamacare.

    The press is largely liberal. Law professors are largely liberal.

    my god can you read?

    National Journal surveyed former Supreme Court clerks and lawyers who have argued cases before the high court

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  173. 173
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 71:

    From the transcript:

    JUSTICE BREYER: I’m just picking on something. I’d like to just — if it turned out there was some terrible epidemic sweeping the United States, and we couldn’t say that more than 40 or 50 percent — I can make the number as high as I want — but the — the — you’d say the Federal Government doesn’t have the power to get people inoculated, to require them to be inoculated, because that’s just statistical

    Amazing how some people thing that the federal government can do anything it wants. Scary that it’s a Supreme Court Justice who thinks that.

    Supreme Court Justices are the last people in the world who think the government can do whatever it wants. I mean they are SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. we don’t even know if that’s his view or if he’s playing devil’s advocate.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  174. 174

    RE: pfft @ 72 – What do you think people who clerk for the Supreme Court do after they clerk? They become law professors.

    But in any case, members of the press pick who they question.

    Do you seriously think that their results mean squat?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  175. 175

    By pfft @ 73:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 71:
    From the transcript:

    JUSTICE BREYER: I’m just picking on something. I’d like to just — if it turned out there was some terrible epidemic sweeping the United States, and we couldn’t say that more than 40 or 50 percent — I can make the number as high as I want — but the — the — you’d say the Federal Government doesn’t have the power to get people inoculated, to require them to be inoculated, because that’s just statistical

    Amazing how some people thing that the federal government can do anything it wants. Scary that it’s a Supreme Court Justice who thinks that.

    Supreme Court Justices are the last people in the world who think the government can do whatever it wants. I mean they are SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. we don’t even know if that’s his view or if he’s playing devil’s advocate.

    I hope he was playing devil’s advocate, but I don’t think he was.

    But incorrect about what Supreme Court justices think. Some of them think women should not be allowed a constitutional right to an abortion. Some of them think just about any warrantless search is valid. Some of them think that politicians can pass laws so that their opponents cannot attack them weeks before an election. The members of the court hold many different views.

    On topic, if the individual mandate stands, the government can do whatever it wants. There will be no limit on what government can do. That’s what part of the argument today was about–the limits if it is valid. About the only thing that the supporters of Obamacare could point to is health care is special and unique. Everything is special and unique.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  176. 176
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 174:

    RE: pfft @ 72 – What do you think people who clerk for the Supreme Court do after they clerk? They become law professors.

    oh god. that is the worst backtrack I’ve ever read on the internet. you are stretching there.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  177. 177

    RE: pfft @ 176 – I’m not willing to generalize about people who argue before the Supreme Court. Some are liberal, some are conservative.

    If you clerk for the Supreme Court you can get a job virtually anywhere. The smart ones, IMHO, become professors, or work in government, rather than practicing lawyers.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  178. 178

    Here’s a good story about the disaster in Washington state when Democrats tried to cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate. What amazed me at the time is that an insurance Commissioner would push something that would lead to such an obvious result, and that the obvious result (insurers pulling out of the state) would take so long.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017852301_insurancemandate28m.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  179. 179

    On the topic of the press, go back and see how the press dealt with the Florida court throwing out all of Obamacare based on severability. Then realize that today the court is having an entire day of argument addressing the issue.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  180. 180

    Today’s argument’s link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-393.pdf

    And nothing better than a good Eight Amendment joke (at least there’s nothing better if you’re in the courtroom and the person telling the joke is a Supreme Court Justice);

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
    (Laughter.)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  181. 181

    After reading most of the transcripts, the most likely outcomes seem to be the whole of Obamacare surviving, or the whole thing being wiped out. Having part survive seems less likely.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  182. 182
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 181:

    After reading most of the transcripts, the most likely outcomes seem to be the whole of Obamacare surviving, or the whole thing being wiped out. Having part survive seems less likely.

    I agree. there is no way that you can have the prexisting condition clause in there and strikedown the mandate w/o bankrupting the insurance industry. in my mind this makes the case for the mandate. the supreme court already has let the government regulate the insurance industry. in order to regulate it the mandate is all wrapped up in that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  183. 183

    RE: pfft @ 82 – If you read the transcript there are three positions being advanced if the individual mandate is held to be unconstitutional.

    1. Just strike the mandate.
    2. Strike the mandate, the pre-existing coverages and insurance markets (whatever they’re called).
    3. Strike the whole act, including things that have nothing to do with healthcare, like ethanol provisions, things pertaining to native americans, etc.

    Apparently no one found a case where the provision struck goes to the heart of an act, and they were having problems expressing a limiting principal. That was the same problem with the individual mandate–if you force people to buy something, what is the limitation on the government’s power to do that?

    BTW, “individual mandate” apparently equals “minimum coverage provisions,” depending on whether you are for or against the mandate.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  184. 184

    BTW, the arguments were fairly interesting, not because of the quality of the debate. Instead because there’s apparently very little prior case law on many of these issues, such as forcing people to buy something (as opposed to forcing them to buy something configured a certain way if they buy something) or striking a major component of legislation.

    Given all the novel issues it wouldn’t surprise me to see four or more opinions generated by the case.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  185. 185
    The Tim says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 183:

    …if you force people to buy something, what is the limitation on the government’s power…

    You still believe there are limits to the federal government’s power? How quaint.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  186. 186

    RE: The Tim @ 85 – LOL, but based on the question in post 171 apparently some Justices think there isn’t any limitation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  187. 187
    pfft says:

    By The Tim @ 185:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 183:
    …if you force people to buy something, what is the limitation on the government’s power…

    You still believe there are limits to the federal government’s power? How quaint.

    by your reasoning the government could never pass anything. the income tax is unconstitutional because why couldn’t the top rate just be 100%?

    anyways you are wrong.

    Plenty of ‘limiting principles’ to go around
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10926548-plenty-of-limiting-principles-to-go-around

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  188. 188
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 150:

    RE: pfft @ 149 – We’ve gone over this so many times. I’m getting tired of it. But I don’t know how you consider over 50% of the population to be a very limited number of people. Look what under 10% of the population did to real estate prices in 2007.

    you’ve got your facts wrong, 5% of the people are accounting for 50% of health costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  189. 189

    By pfft @ 87:

    By The Tim @ 185:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 183:
    …if you force people to buy something, what is the limitation on the government’s power…

    You still believe there are limits to the federal government’s power? How quaint.

    by your reasoning the government could never pass anything. the income tax is unconstitutional because why couldn’t the top rate just be 100%?

    anyways you are wrong.

    Plenty of ‘limiting principles’ to go around
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10926548-plenty-of-limiting-principles-to-go-around

    First, you probably need to know before making absurd arguments that the income tax is only legal because there’s a constitutional amendment that allows it.

    Second, I love how you don’t even read your own link. The link to the choices was within that link–here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/03/limiting-principle.html

    Third, just because someone can come up with limiting principles doesn’t mean the court (or anyone) will be happy with them, or that there is any basis to impose them. Also, one of those three limiting principles is problematic in and of itself–the tax one. Which gets back to the first point–the income tax is only constitutional because there’s an amendment which allows it. Just because it’s a tax doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. One of the arguments made was that it is an unconstitutional tax.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  190. 190

    By pfft @ 88:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 150:
    RE: pfft @ 149 – We’ve gone over this so many times. I’m getting tired of it. But I don’t know how you consider over 50% of the population to be a very limited number of people. Look what under 10% of the population did to real estate prices in 2007.

    you’ve got your facts wrong, 5% of the people are accounting for 50% of health costs.

    Totally non-responsive and indicates you don’t even have a clue about what I’m talking about. Read it again–I pointed out a small number of people can affect the market. How is pointing out that a small number of people affected the market in any way disputing what I said?

    Also, you said the same thing in post 151. I keep saying you need to have your memory checked. You keep repeating the same things over and over and over here.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  191. 191

    I love how all of pfft’s so-called experts have apparently changed their tune based on the oral arguments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/the-health-care-mandate-and-the-constitution.html

    Not too surprising that those who don’t understand the difference between regulating commerce and creating commerce would think that oral arguments actually mean much. The chance that Obamacare will be struck down is almost exactly what it was before the oral arguments. It’s very unlikely the arguments changed a single justices mind. Apparently though, these so-called experts were unaware of what the arguments were, so their minds were changed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  192. 192

    The Supreme Court is voting today on the Obamacare case, and will decide who writes the opinion. I wonder if today President Obama is wishing that he hadn’t done this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bR_9wmNnD4

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  193. 193
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 190:

    By pfft @ 88:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 150:
    RE: pfft @ 149 – We’ve gone over this so many times. I’m getting tired of it. But I don’t know how you consider over 50% of the population to be a very limited number of people. Look what under 10% of the population did to real estate prices in 2007.

    you’ve got your facts wrong, 5% of the people are accounting for 50% of health costs.

    Totally non-responsive and indicates you don’t even have a clue about what I’m talking about. Read it again–I pointed out a small number of people can affect the market. How is pointing out that a small number of people affected the market in any way disputing what I said?

    Also, you said the same thing in post 151. I keep saying you need to have your memory checked. You keep repeating the same things over and over and over here.

    DO THE MATH. what it means is that because such a small portion of people have such high healthcare costs means that your idea that healthcare is so expensive because people don’t care what it costs is simply false. there are simply not enough people to make a difference.

    the report showed how a tiny segment of the population can drive health care spending

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  194. 194

    RE: pfft @ 93 – So in your world, at least 5% of the people are causing prescription Prilosec to be 10 times more expensive than the same stuff in non-prescription form? I doubt 5% of the people are taking any form of Prilosec. You don’t understand how markets work. When a stock has a very good or very bad day, it’s typically a very small percentage of the stock actually changing hands. Small groups more markets.

    In any case, what percentage of the population is using their insurance in any significant way during any given year? There are probably a significant percentage of people that have insurance that don’t even do the annual visit to the doctor. That doesn’t mean that a small percentage of them wouldn’t be driving up costs by spending without regard to cost.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  195. 195
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 194:

    RE: pfft @ 93 – So in your world, at least 5% of the people are causing prescription Prilosec to be 10 times more expensive than the same stuff in non-prescription form? I doubt 5% of the people are taking any form of Prilosec.

    to talk about one single aspect is worthless when we are talking about the entirety of healthcare spending.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  196. 196

    That one single aspect shows the impact of having insurance. The link to Drugstore.com’s pricing is held up in the spam filter in the weekend thread, but it’s 7x the cost in prescription form. If there wasn’t an OTC version of the drug it would probably be even more expensive.

    Another example is Nasonex. Last time I looked that stuff is now twice as expensive as only a few years ago, because the ads have driven up the demand.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  197. 197

    This article indicates we are one of four nations spending over $600 a year per capita on drugs, with the US at $950. That’s roughly 1/8th of our spending, per the article. I wouldn’t really call the costs of drugs insignificant.

    http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10922752-countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care

    BTW, the new version of Adblock for Chrome substitutes pictures of cats for ads. Lots of cats in that link!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  198. 198
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 196:

    That one single aspect shows the impact of having insurance. The link to Drugstore.com’s pricing is held up in the spam filter in the weekend thread, but it’s 7x the cost in prescription form. If there wasn’t an OTC version of the drug it would probably be even more expensive.

    Another example is Nasonex. Last time I looked that stuff is now twice as expensive as only a few years ago, because the ads have driven up the demand.

    one drug isn’t a big deal. are all drugs 7-10 times more? then we have a problem. we should have re-importation of drugs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  199. 199

    RE: pfft @ 198 – It’s a problem with all drugs which have not had their patent expire.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  200. 200
    pfft says:

    I still believe it’s going to be 5-4 or 6-3 for Obamacare being constitutional. the court has recognized that the federal government can regulate healthcare. in order to regulate pre-existing conditions and other areas we need a mandate or the health insurance system collapses.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  201. 201

    By pfft @ 100:

    I still believe it’s going to be 5-4 or 6-3 for Obamacare being constitutional. the court has recognized that the federal government can regulate healthcare. in order to regulate pre-existing conditions and other areas we need a mandate or the health insurance system collapses.

    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: Thumb up 0

  202. 202

    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: Thumb up 0

  203. 203
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:

    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.

    link please.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  204. 204
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 1:

    By pfft @ 100:
    I still believe it’s going to be 5-4 or 6-3 for Obamacare being constitutional. the court has recognized that the federal government can regulate healthcare. in order to regulate pre-existing conditions and other areas we need a mandate or the health insurance system collapses.

    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!

    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: Thumb up 0

  205. 205

    By pfft @ 3:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
    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.

    link please.

    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: Thumb up 0

  206. 206

    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: Thumb up 0

  207. 207
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 205:

    By pfft @ 3:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
    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.

    link please.

    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!

    you made specific comments. link please. for example

    “That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets.”

    link please.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  208. 208
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 6:

    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?

    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: Thumb up 0

  209. 209

    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: Thumb up 0

  210. 210

    By pfft @ 8:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 6:
    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?

    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.

    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: Thumb up 0

  211. 211

    By pfft @ 207:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 205:
    By pfft @ 3:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
    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.

    link please.

    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!

    you made specific comments. link please. for example

    “That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets.”

    link please.

    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: Thumb up 0

  212. 212
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 209:

    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.

    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: Thumb up 0

  213. 213
  214. 214

    RE: Scotsman @ 213 – He lost me when he was talking about an educated well-informed electorate. ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  215. 215

    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: Thumb up 0

  216. 216

    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: Thumb up 0

  217. 217
  218. 218
  219. 219
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 218:

    Obamacare is not very popular, and is becoming even less popular.

    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: Thumb up 0

  220. 220
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:

    You people with traditional insurance, that don’t give a crap what anything costs, are killing me!

    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: Thumb up 0

  221. 221

    By pfft @ 220:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:
    You people with traditional insurance, that don’t give a crap what anything costs, are killing me!

    4 or 5 other countries have our same system and don’t have our high costs. Mass with mandates has not seen prices skyrocket.

    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: Thumb up 0

  222. 222
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 221:

    By pfft @ 220:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:
    You people with traditional insurance, that don’t give a crap what anything costs, are killing me!

    4 or 5 other countries have our same system and don’t have our high costs. Mass with mandates has not seen prices skyrocket.

    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.

    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: Thumb up 0

  223. 223

    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: Thumb up 0

  224. 224
    pfft says:

    yes Kary because healthcare costs are only “spiraling” in Mass! costs are not spiraling out of control because of romneycare.

    more proof:

    “nearly everybody in the state has health insurance, while data suggest more people have regular access to care and fewer people face crushing health care costs.” Plus, as you can see in the graph, costs are increasing more slowly than in the rest of the nation.

    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: Thumb up 0

  225. 225

    By pfft @ 24:

    yes Kary because healthcare costs are only “spiraling” in Mass! costs are not spiraling out of control because of romneycare.

    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: Thumb up 0

  226. 226
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 225:

    By pfft @ 24:
    yes Kary because healthcare costs are only “spiraling” in Mass! costs are not spiraling out of control because of romneycare.

    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.

    what? just say it kary: I was wrong!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  227. 227

    RE: pfft @ 26 – Huh? Finally run out of trolling ideas?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  228. 228

    RE: pfft @ 26 – Huh? Finally run out of trolling ideas?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  229. 229

    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: Thumb up 0

  230. 230

    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: Thumb up 0

  231. 231

    For those who want to read the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  232. 232

    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: Thumb up 0

  233. 233

    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: Thumb up 0

  234. 234

    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.

    Sixty-five percent of Democrats said they wanted to maintain if not expand, the law, while 85 percent of Republicans want the Affordable Care Act repealed in whole or in part. Independents were more evenly divided, with 40 percent in favor of keeping or expanding the law and 49 percent in favor of repealing all or part of the law.

    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/06/30/US-evenly-split-on-healthcare-reform/UPI-95321341035541/#ixzz1zHZoA2Fp

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  235. 235
    ChrisM says:

    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: Thumb up 0

  236. 236

    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: Thumb up 0

  237. 237
    Scotsman says:

    “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: Thumb up 0

  238. 238

    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: Thumb up 0

  239. 239
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 237:

    “So â�¦ Obama was against raiding Medicare to fund an â��ill-conceived, badly thought through planâ�� 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/

    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: Thumb up 0

  240. 240
    David S says:

    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: Thumb up 0

  241. 241

    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: Thumb up 0

  242. 242
  243. 243
    Jamarcus says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 238:

    Good thing Obamacare is controlling costs and doesn’t cause hyperinflation of healthcare costs. My insurance only went up by 16.5%.

    Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. A rather juvenile logical fallacy. Try again when you can prove that a caused b.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  244. 244
    David Losh says:

    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: Thumb up 0

  245. 245

    RE: David Losh @ 44RE: 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: Thumb up 0

  246. 246

    Anthem Blue Cross, the state’s [California] largest for-profit health insurer, wants to raise rates an average of 17.5 percent for 744,000 members in February, with some Anthem policyholders seeing increases as high as 25 percent.

    “Here we go again,” said Bruce Trummel, 62, who just got notice from the insurer about a 24.6 percent increase. Trummel, a self-employed piano tuner from the small town of Aromas, which borders Monterey and San Benito counties, said this will be the second rate hike of the year from Anthem, totaling 45.6 percent. His premiums will jump from $423 to $616 per month if the new rates go through.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Health-insurance-rates-could-shoot-up-4079244.php#ixzz2EWAcWRSu

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  247. 247
    David Losh says:

    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: Thumb up 0

  248. 248

    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: Thumb up 0

  249. 249

    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: Thumb up 0

  250. 250

    Supporters of Obamacare finally realize the obvious.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020384158_healthcostsxml.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  251. 251
  252. 252
    pfft says:

    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: Thumb up 0

  253. 253

    As long as I posted today I might as well set the record straight for pfft. Obamacare is more expensive–much more–unless you qualify for a subsidy. Here’s a link on what’s happening to my health insurance costs with two other links showing my experience is hardly unique.

    http://www.trulia.com/blog/kary_l_krismer/2013/10/agents_how_will_you_be_surviving_obamacare

    Higher cost for less insurance coverage! Clearly that will lead to more people having coverage. /sarc

    At least I wasn’t stupid enough to actually believe President Obama. When the San Francisco Chronicle posts an article about increased costs of Obamacare, you know it’s bad!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  254. 254

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 253

    Kary, I’m an Old Fashion 70s Liberal and Agree With You

    Just like the 70s college educated liberals fought hard against the Viet Nam War and Overpopulation; I’ll add an old hiippy’s view point on Obamacare.

    1. Cadillac Care Plans aren’t luxury plans for the rich, they’re the normal middle income American Blue Cross and Group Health type family plans over $10K/yr….you know the plans with just a $15 copay and no costs or MASS expense before insurance kicks in.

    2. Practically no one can afford Cadillac Plans anymore [or the last few decades for that matter].

    3. Buying the cheap Obamacare website plans takes a wild imagination [or deluded nature] and expecting the costs to best the 1% or even 2% IRS fine/risk of winging it with no coverage.

    4. Understanding Obamacare options is WAY TOO ambiguous and error prone to conclude anything on a random sample of inadequate protection examples written in unclear legaleese in big booklets, so no one really knows what they’re signing or how it will change after they sign in.

    IMO, we need to get the BIG PICTURE clear; why is about 5% or so of our workers [healthcare] grabbing about 50% [$20K/yr for a Blue Cross Family Option] of the GDP in this country?

    Solution: IMO, we need MASS Bioengineering expertise in the American health care field, eliminating the need for MASS doctors and nurses in America. That’s what savvy engineers do, eliminate the need for labor.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  255. 255
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 253

    A large factor in the increase in premiums might be the risk related to coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    I checked on the news stories about changes in insurance premiums a couple months back and it appeared that they were going up just about everywhere except one place, New York. Apparently New York already required coverage for pre-existing conditions and so the Affordable Care Act wasn’t as scary to those who set premium rates in the insurance industry there.

    “New York does not allow insurers to reject people with pre-existing conditions, something Obamacare also bars them from doing. And it required them to provide a standard set of deductibles, co-pays and benefits, including hospital care, lab tests and prescription drugs.
    That sent premium costs soaring. Health care costs per capita are about 18% higher in New York than nationally, state officials said.”

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/17/news/economy/obamacare-health-insurance-new-york/index.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  256. 256

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 255 – I think it may go beyond pre-existing conditions, but it’s hard to tell from that article. Note that they don’t give any information on deductibles, but they claim that the lowest price currently in NYC is over $1,000 a month! Something is terribly wrong in that state if that is true.

    This is from memory, but I think Washington has had loopholes for pre-existing for some time (e.g. coming off an employer plan), and I think the waiting period to cover pre-existing is only six months if you don’t have a loophole you can take advantage of.

    I suspect that part of the higher prices is the companies really don’t want to be attractive to new customers. They fear being hit with a bunch of new clients where they take in $500 a month and pay out $5,000 a month. The Regence prices I quote in my blog, which were the highest rates, were not final, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they drop them now that they know the exchange rates, so that they retain more existing customers. If they don’t, they probably will only have about 10 individual customers left, and they will probably be dead people with automatic premium payments.

    If I go with an exchange company I probably won’t pick the cheapest one for fear that company will soon be bankrupt after having attracted the most of the worst of the worst.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  257. 257
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 253:

    As long as I posted today I might as well set the record straight for pfft. Obamacare is more expensive–much more–unless you qualify for a subsidy.

    no it isn’t.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  258. 258
    pfft says:

    “No wonder this program had to be put into law behind closed doors, in the middle of the night, without critical review.
    Unless you are eligible for MEDICADE….you just got hosed.
    Now, how do you like that for ‘change?”

    sorry kerry but this is an awful comment that you would normally fine in a conservative chain email. I am pretty sure that it wasn’t put into law behind closed doors. what does that even mean? most cotes are on c-span. this vote was probably televised on most cable news channels. it did have critical review. Obama negotiated for months with republicans. there were tons of hearings. the plan is a republican plan from the 1990s. it was written by the same people who brought Mass. Romneycare.

    “Unless you are eligible for MEDICADE….you just got hosed.”

    no. there are many many good provisions in Obamacare and people will get subsidies even if they don’t qualify for medicare.

    so people may see premiums go up but their premiums are going up anyway. you also aren’t accounting for savings. what is having insurance at all mean? it could mean your life? 40,000 a year in a study died in the US a few years ago due do lack of healthcare. Are things in perspective now? Lifetime and annual caps no longer being in play will save people money and probably their life. Kids can stay on their parents insurance longer and on and on. You complain about the costs but say nothing of the benefits. that is not fair!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  259. 259

    By pfft @ 257:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 253:
    As long as I posted today I might as well set the record straight for pfft. Obamacare is more expensive–much more–unless you qualify for a subsidy.

    no it isn’t.

    Wow, actual facts against “no it isn’t.” I wonder which is more convincing?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  260. 260

    RE: pfft @ 58 – You comment about a comment on my blog piece here? Whatever, those where her statements, not mine.

    Rather than say Obamacare was put through in the middle of the night behind closed doors, I would say it was voted on without the politicians having read or understood it, because it’s too long and complicated (not necessarily because they’re lazy or didn’t have the time).

    As to the benefits, there are much cheaper ways of accomplishing the same benefits, and they don’t involve arbitrary wealth transfer which is effectively a hidden tax. Unfortunately because those cheaper ways would require a real live tax, they would never get out of Congress.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  261. 261
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 259:

    By pfft @ 257:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 253:
    As long as I posted today I might as well set the record straight for pfft. Obamacare is more expensive–much more–unless you qualify for a subsidy.

    no it isn’t.

    Wow, actual facts against “no it isn’t.” I wonder which is more convincing?

    I’ve read stories about people who will save $10,000 a year because of Obamacare. Some people will only get insurance under Obamacare because of Obamacare. How do you calculate costs like that?

    Fact is I provided just as much evidence as you did. I don’t know what you’re complaining about.

    Pre-existing conditions and high healthcare costs are real.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  262. 262
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 60:

    RE: pfft @ 58 – You comment about a comment on my blog piece here? Whatever, those where her statements, not mine.

    Rather than say Obamacare was put through in the middle of the night behind closed doors, I would say it was voted on without the politicians having read or understood it, because it’s too long and complicated (not necessarily because they’re lazy or didn’t have the time).

    the basic structure of the bill is passed on a Hertiage Plan from the 90s, a Republican alternative to Hillarycare called the Heart Act, Romney care and has hundreds of Republican amendments. I tooks months to pass and went through tons of hearings and committees.

    Around 5 countries have the same insurance mandate. So does Massachusetts.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  263. 263
    pfft says:

    another factcheck for kary,

    the administration hopes 7 million people who currently do not have any health insurance will use the site to buy it. Most people will likely qualify for heavy government subsidies to do so.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healthcare-gov-will-work-smoothly-end-november-government-pledges-8C11466184?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  264. 264
    Haybaler says:

    RE: pfft @ 263

    Facts? I see puffery and speculation in that article….blowing sunshine up the readers A**.

    I watched a CNN report yesterday.

    The reporters visited a chain of health care clinics located in low income neighborhoods. The clinic had staffed itself with counselors and work cubicles to help the clients sign up for healthcare plans. The clinic is highly motivated to have paying clients instead of deadbeats.

    If they can get clients signed up then clinic revenue will be increased.

    After weeks of trying and 6000 client counseling sessions the total number of successful placements was zero….. Firstly, because the exchange website didn’t allow them to close an application and purchase a plan and…. Secondly, because “Our clients aren’t used to the idea of making monthly payments for health insurance, even token subsidized payments”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  265. 265
    pfft says:

    By Haybaler @ 264:

    RE: pfft @ 263

    Facts? I see puffery and speculation in that article….blowing sunshine up the readers A**.

    oh man you’ve totally refuted obamacare! I’m convinced now. kary said most people won’t have affordable premiums unless they get subsidies. most people are getting subsidies. kary was refuted.

    link to your CNN story or it didn’t happen…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  266. 266

    Thank you for reminding me why I no longer post on this site. Yet another reason I’m sorry David died. I had to once again read pfft’s nonsense. I won’t make that mistake again.

    But hey, that some people can steal $10,000 a year from others because the government forces that result, that makes it entirely okay. After all, the money insurance companies pay just materializes out of thin air, and it is still insurance if you can sign up for it after the event has occurred and your premiums each month are less than what you get in benefits. That is the very definition of insurance. /sarc.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  267. 267
    Haybaler says:

    RE: pfft @ 265

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2Fvideo%2Fnews%2F2013%2F10%2F24%2Fn-obamacare-clinic-sign-up-zero.cnnmoney&ei=i81qUs7CH4L-iQKNs4GgBA&usg=AFQjCNF3zI6YUA07YYYDOmPMXkQiFiiCfQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.cGE

    Pfft, for your benefit I will explain what I meant by describing the claims made inside the article linked in your post above as “puffery”. Specifically, the article claims that 7 million people will get signed up by the due date…. My point is that at the current rate of participation the total numbers will fall far short of that goal. According to the numbers in the article, after three weeks of enrollment, the rate of enrollment is way too slow to meet the target claimed. This video is evidence of why target enrollments are optimistic.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  268. 268
    Haybaler says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 266

    Hi Kary,

    I wonder if you saw the front page of the Tacoma News Tribune yesterday?

    I almost blew my top when I read the headline “140 people sign up for free health insurance”. The old guys at the lunch counter had to listen to me spout off for fifteen minutes.

    If it’s free it isn’t “health INSURANCE”, it’s free health CARE…. It’s insurance if you have to pay some money and share in the risk.

    I know that ordinary folks just make the word substitution in their head because when I got home and asked my wife if she’d seen the paper she replied that she had and misquoted the article headline to me as “140 people sign up for free healthcare”.

    The truth is that we now have a free healthcare system for some, paid for by all of the rest of us. Kary, you hit the nail on the head with the transfer payment from one house to another….

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  269. 269

    RE: Haybaler @ 268 – No I didn’t see that, but do keep in mind the headline isn’t typically written by the author of the article. Unfortunately I can’t find the article you’re referring to.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  270. 270

    RE: Haybaler @ 67 – Besides the technical glitches, many people are probably holding off to better assess their options.

    On the other hand, the first few weeks might be the most attention the system gets. We won’t know until it happens.

    I was predicting that Obamacare would destroy our health care system over the long run by creating hyperinflation at the provider and drug manufacturer level. There’s now at least some possibility that it will destroy the system of private insurance as those who were paying drop out only to be replaced by those who pay little or nothing. That could hit even faster than back years ago when Washington came up the stupid idea of not requiring insurance but not allowing pre-existing conditions as an exclusion. It took a couple of years to destroy insurance then, and get the law repealed. This could be much faster if enough people who were insured drop out.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  271. 271
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 266:

    Thank you for reminding me why I no longer post on this site. Yet another reason I’m sorry David died. I had to once again read pfft’s nonsense. I won’t make that mistake again.

    But hey, that some people can steal $10,000 a year from others because the government forces that result, that makes it entirely okay. After all, the money insurance companies pay just materializes out of thin air, and it is still insurance if you can sign up for it after the event has occurred and your premiums each month are less than what you get in benefits. That is the very definition of insurance. /sarc.

    people aren’t stealing money from anywone kary. it’s how insurance works. everyone pools together to get a better deal. some may benefit more than others. the person who saves $10,000 might just be unlucky while the person who doesn’t was lucky enough to have a job that offers good health insurance. this is just the basic nature of insurance. I don’t think you really understand that. nobody is stealing anything from anyone anymore than someone who couldn’t afford private cops and firefighters on their own can when the government provides those services.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  272. 272
    pfft says:

    By Haybaler @ 67:

    RE: pfft @ 265

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2Fvideo%2Fnews%2F2013%2F10%2F24%2Fn-obamacare-clinic-sign-up-zero.cnnmoney&ei=i81qUs7CH4L-iQKNs4GgBA&usg=AFQjCNF3zI6YUA07YYYDOmPMXkQiFiiCfQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.cGE

    Pfft, for your benefit I will explain what I meant by describing the claims made inside the article linked in your post above as “puffery”. Specifically, the article claims that 7 million people will get signed up by the due date…. My point is that at the current rate of participation the total numbers will fall far short of that goal. According to the numbers in the article, after three weeks of enrollment, the rate of enrollment is way too slow to meet the target claimed. This video is evidence of why target enrollments are optimistic.

    the vast majority of people will sign up right before the deadline like in Mass with Obamacare. Sorry I meant like in Mass with Romneycare.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115309/obamacare-enrollment-massachusetts-statistics-suggest-it-will-be-slow

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  273. 273
    pfft says:

    By Haybaler @ 68:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 266

    Hi Kary,

    I wonder if you saw the front page of the Tacoma News Tribune yesterday?

    I almost blew my top when I read the headline “140 people sign up for free health insurance”. The old guys at the lunch counter had to listen to me spout off for fifteen minutes.

    If it’s free it isn’t “health INSURANCE”, it’s free health CARE…. It’s insurance if you have to pay some money and share in the risk.

    I know that ordinary folks just make the word substitution in their head because when I got home and asked my wife if she’d seen the paper she replied that she had and misquoted the article headline to me as “140 people sign up for free healthcare”.

    The truth is that we now have a free healthcare system for some, paid for by all of the rest of us. Kary, you hit the nail on the head with the transfer payment from one house to another….

    Just like Kary you don’t really understand the concept of insurance or government in general.

    “you hit the nail on the head with the transfer payment from one house to another…”

    no. here is why. the people who do sign up have paid taxes in the past and likely will in the future. you probably take tax deductions that they can’t take advantage of. I don’t hear you complain about that. if you do put in a little bit more than you take out why would you complain? you should be feel lucky. You also don’t ever know if you someday need government assistance. How do you know you wouldn’t have ever lost your health insurance or needed more care than your old health insurance provided?

    Also most of the people who signed up for free insurance were probably children or were a household that had at least one person working.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  274. 274
    pfft says:

    Oh god is this the article? I know I don’t know you but if this is the article you are a miserable person.

    volunteers signed up 140 homeless or recently homeless people for the expanded Medicaid coverage

    Forty-six percent of homeless people are homeless because of medical issues and lack of insurance

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/10/23/2852983/tacoma-event-helps-homeless-sign.html#storylink=cpy

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  275. 275

    By pfft @ 273:

    Just like Kary you don’t really understand the concept of insurance or government in general.
    .

    ROTFLMAO. The person who thinks people should be able to sign up for insurance after a loss occurs accuses someone else of not understanding insurance.

    As I said above, if government wanted to take this on it could be done much cheaper, but they’d never get the taxes through to pay for it.

    You might find this article interesting. San Fran apparently has free public health, although I’m pretty sure they don’t pay for really expensive procedures.

    http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Healthy-S-F-might-sicken-Tea-Partiers-4929116.php

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  276. 276

    By pfft @ 71:

    people aren’t stealing money from anywone kary. it’s how insurance works. everyone pools together to get a better deal. some may benefit more than others. the person who saves $10,000 might just be unlucky while the person who doesn’t was lucky enough to have a job that offers good health insurance. this is just the basic nature of insurance. I don’t think you really understand that. nobody is stealing anything from anyone anymore than someone who couldn’t afford private cops and firefighters on their own can when the government provides those services.

    If they were signed up before the loss I would agree with you. That would be risk sharing.

    If they’re allowed to sign up after the loss, that’s stealing. The government supports it so that the government won’t have to pay their costs, but it’s still stealing. How else would you describe paying $500 a month to get over $10,000 a month each and every month when that $9,500 comes from other people who are unlucky enough to be part of the same insurance plan?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  277. 277
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 275:

    By pfft @ 273:
    Just like Kary you don’t really understand the concept of insurance or government in general.
    .

    ROTFLMAO. The person who thinks people should be able to sign up for insurance after a loss occurs accuses someone else of not understanding insurance.

    what are you even talking about? I don’t think you should be able to sign up for insurance after a loss. you don’t understand obamacare obviously. the way you mitigate having to cover those who are disproportionately sick is the mandate. you get as many people are you can signed up to absorb those with pre-existing conditions are a “loss.” whatever a loss means.

    you think obamacare will result in hyperinflation in drug costs so don’t tell me I don’t know what’s going on. When and where has your nightmare scenario ever played out? 3-4 countries and Massachusetts have the insurance mandate so please provide an example.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  278. 278
    Blurtman says:

    It was interesting to hear Sebelius’ (who should do the right thing and resign) comments on the John Stewart show basically saying they couldn’t do single payer because just look at the resistance to Obamacare.

    But Obamacare will continue to be a gravy train for corporate interests. If the burden of the uninsured, which includes those with pre-existing conditions, is lifted off the backs of the insured, one would expect the premiums of the insured to come down. For example, the Kaiser Foundation says that the average family of four pays over $2,000 per year extra to cover the cost of the uninsured. But the Kaiser Foundation forecasts an increase in the price of insurance premiums for the insured going forward. How is that possible, unless industry is double dipping?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  279. 279

    By pfft @ 277:

    what are you even talking about? I don’t think you should be able to sign up for insurance after a loss. you don’t understand obamacare obviously. the way you mitigate having to cover those who are disproportionately sick is the mandate. you get as many people are you can signed up to absorb those with pre-existing conditions are a “loss.” whatever a loss means.

    A preexisting condition is a loss when it comes to medical insurance. Anything you can make a claim on. And getting more people doesn’t solve the problem, particularly when you’re starting a new program.

    Imagine you’re at Emerald Downs, where the payoff on the bet depends on how many people bet on each horse. If you after the race forced everyone to bet on that last race, the people would overwhelmingly pick the winning horse, and lower the odds to next to nothing. That’s what will happen with Obamacare, but in reverse, because the people with existing conditions will be more likely to sign up (particularly if they are low income) and the people who are healthy will be more likely to just pay the penalty (particularly at the starting low levels).

    you think obamacare will result in hyperinflation in drug costs so don’t tell me I don’t know what’s going on. When and where has your nightmare scenario ever played out?

    It’s already played out. I’ve discussed that before with the price of Nasonex (sp?) and Prilosec. No need to repeat what I’ve already said or prove what I’ve already proven.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  280. 280

    By Blurtman @ 78:

    But Obamacare will continue to be a gravy train for corporate interests. If the burden of the uninsured, which includes those with pre-existing conditions, is lifted off the backs of the insured, one would expect the premiums of the insured to come down. For example, the Kaiser Foundation says that the average family of four pays over $2,000 per year extra to cover the cost of the uninsured. But the Kaiser Foundation forecasts an increase in the price of insurance premiums for the insured going forward. How is that possible, unless industry is double dipping?

    The first $2,000 number is a complete fabrication–sort of like Zillow. But in any case, the existence of more insurance on a system is inflationary because no one cares what anything costs. It’s like the prescription Prilosec costing over $200 when you can get the exact same thing (Prilosec OTC) for only about $20. In addition, I think Obamacare adds on yet more coverage for more things (e.g maybe Chiropractic) which wouldn’t be covered under the emergency care provisions hospitals must follow.

    The entities that will profit more aren’t the insurance companies, but instead the providers and the drug companies. Some insurance companies will probably go insolvent.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  281. 281
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 278:

    It was interesting to hear Sebelius’ (who should do the right thing and resign) comments on the John Stewart show basically saying they couldn’t do single payer because just look at the resistance to Obamacare.

    single-payer wasn’t going to pass.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  282. 282
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 79:

    By pfft @ 277:
    what are you even talking about? I don’t think you should be able to sign up for insurance after a loss. you don’t understand obamacare obviously. the way you mitigate having to cover those who are disproportionately sick is the mandate. you get as many people are you can signed up to absorb those with pre-existing conditions are a “loss.” whatever a loss means.

    A preexisting condition is a loss when it comes to medical insurance. Anything you can make a claim on. And getting more people doesn’t solve the problem, particularly when you’re starting a new program.

    It’s already played out. I’ve discussed that before with the price of Nasonex (sp?) and Prilosec. No need to repeat what I’ve already said or prove what I’ve already proven.

    a pre-existing condition is not necessarily a loss because there is no guarantee that the condition will ever show up again.

    “And getting more people doesn’t solve the problem, particularly when you’re starting a new program.”

    god kary this is basic stuff that was hashed out years ago. if you cover pre-existing conditions you must have as many people paying in as possible. thus the mandate. again this is very basic stuff.

    “It’s already played out. I’ve discussed that before with the price of Nasonex (sp?) and Prilosec. No need to repeat what I’ve already said or prove what I’ve already proven.”

    at yet you can’t give me one example. you give one drug. forgive me if I don’t believe you on that one. which country with a mandate experienced hyperinflation in prescription drug costs. you can’t name any. did this happen in Massachusetts? no.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  283. 283
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 80:

    By Blurtman @ 78:
    But Obamacare will continue to be a gravy train for corporate interests. If the burden of the uninsured, which includes those with pre-existing conditions, is lifted off the backs of the insured, one would expect the premiums of the insured to come down. For example, the Kaiser Foundation says that the average family of four pays over $2,000 per year extra to cover the cost of the uninsured. But the Kaiser Foundation forecasts an increase in the price of insurance premiums for the insured going forward. How is that possible, unless industry is double dipping?

    The first $2,000 number is a complete fabrication–sort of like Zillow. But in any case, the existence of more insurance on a system is inflationary because no one cares what anything costs.

    can I have 3 studies please. thanks!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  284. 284

    By pfft @ 282:

    a pre-existing condition is not necessarily a loss because there is no guarantee that the condition will ever show up again..

    Fair enough. The first good point you’ve made. Unfortunately Obamacare doesn’t so limit it to situations where there are not ongoing claims. That’s how the insurance used to work. Many people could still get insurance, but just not be covered for what currently ailed them (e.g. being pregnant before signing up for insurance).

    As to your more people argument, unfortunately there isn’t just a single pool. There are many pools, at least one for each insurance company and likely many more. Also, the individual market is relatively small even if you look at the entire group as a single pool.

    As to your arguments on hyperinflation and Massachusetts, first, it had some of the highest, if not the highest costs before Romneycare. But second, you’re not going to see hyperinflation because of just one state, but you will see it on the national level. Proof of that is simply that the same drugs cost more here. Too much insurance has already had an effect, and more of it will cause more inflation. Now, however, it’s not clear Obamacare will cause more insurance. It’s possible it will result in less insurance as people who are insured drop out of the market. Paying $5,000 or more a year for insurance that only pays out each year to cover a physical (if the person goes) is not a decision a lot of people are going to make.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  285. 285
    Blake says:

    This is how Obamacare might be leveraged by neoliberals and corporatists to do real long temr damage! S’funny… The right hates Obamacare so much… so they want to use that as the model to “reform” entitlements! What a nightmare…
    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/28/what_the_tea_party_misses_if_you_hate_obamacare_youll_really_hate_what_the_right_wants_to_do_to_social_security/
    -snip- “And with neoliberal Democratic supporters of the proposal as cover, the overclass centrists of the corporate media will begin pushing for Lifelong Obamacare as the sober, responsible, “adult” policy in one unsigned editorial after another. Once Medicare has been abolished in favor of Lifelong Obamacare, perhaps by a future neoliberal Democratic president like Clinton and Obama, Social Security won’t last very long.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  286. 286
    Blake says:

    By Blurtman @ 78:

    But Obamacare will continue to be a gravy train for corporate interests.

    It gets worse…
    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/obamacare-deadline-delayed-beware-insurance-death-spiral-says-155612417.html
    -snip-
    “The government needs to get the website up and running as soon as possible.” If it doesn’t and only the sickest Americans sign up–because younger and healthier individuals don’t–there could be an “insurance death spiral,” says Barro. He explains: “If only people who are especially sick buy health insurance, then you end up with a pool of people who are really expensive to cover, so insurers have to respond to that by raising premiums. Then more people drop out of insurance because it gets more expensive and you have a death spiral where only extremely sick people paying extremely higher premiums are in the insurance market.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  287. 287

    Regence has now had their rates approved. Before they were quoting me $494 a month, with a $5,000 deductible. The approved rates are under $450 a month!

    On Sunday Juan Williams was on Fox News Sunday claiming that those of us whose existing policies were cancelled would be offered new better plans that would also be cheaper. I’d like to see him explain how a $5,000 deductible is better than a $3,500 deductible, or how over $400 a month is cheaper than $239 a month. I guess he’s drank too much of the Obama Koolaid and he too has become a liar.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  288. 288

    For those of you who thought it might have been over the top to imply President Obama is a liar:

    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  289. 289
    Haybaler says:

    RE: pfft @ 272
    Obama admin. lowers health sign-up expectations
    The Associated Press – By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – Associated Press
    31 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is trying to lower expectations for strong initial enrollments under the president’s historic expansion of health coverage for the medically uninsured.

    ”Facing ongoing problems with the enrollment website, Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner told Congress on Tuesday that “we expect the initial numbers to be small.”

    An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press shows that the administration expected nearly 500,000 people to gain coverage just in October, the program’s first month. Tavenner repeatedly declined to cite enrollment numbers, saying they will not be provided until mid-November.

    House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, drew his own conclusion. He told Tavenner that by his math, the administration appears headed for less than a fourth of its October sign-up estimate.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  290. 290
    Haybaler says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 270
    I basically agree with you on the theory that too much government can lead to inflation in service and product costs.

    I remember when the Section 8 housing program began to become common. The result was that any dumpy rental automatically rented for whatever the program set as the “limit” for that size unit. In some markets I notice Sect 8 still provides a support for higher than fair market rents.

    The current situation in healthcare exposes a sense of conflict in the market place. Some providers of healthcare services are concerned that the new insurance programs and Medicaid/Medicare will not provide high enough reimbursement for services. There is talk of doctors choosing to leave medicine altogether or certain geographic regions. Cost control at a central level has to be one of the insurance industries leading functions…denying or limiting procedures and fees, …cattle management techniques as service goes out the window because service doesn’t pay.

    On the other hand prices for everything medical will certainly rise (or fall) to the authorized level of price reimbursement. The question becomes one of quality of products and services provided at those authorized reimbursement prices.

    Like subsidized rental housing, the quality of healthcare will fall to the minimum possible level to receive the payments because the free market is not in control.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  291. 291
    Haybaler says:

    I have to say that I feel a sense of satisfaction that these people get what they voted for. …Serves ‘em right. Unfortunately, their votes drew me into this mess too. Some of us can say “I told you so”. Small consolation.

    Washington Times

    Monday, October 28, 2013

    California residents are rebelling a bit against Obamacare, with thousands shocked by the sticker price and rethinking their support, saying that what seemed wonderful in principle is not translating so well into reality.

    As Pam Kehaly, the president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, reported, she received a letter from one woman who saw her insurance rates rise by 50 percent due to Obamacare.

    “She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,’ ” Ms. Kehaly said, in the Los Angeles Times.

    Several hundred thousand other Californians in coming weeks may be feeling the same pinch, as insurers drop their plans and push them onto exchanges, medical analysts say. Blue Shield of California sent letters to 119,000 residents last month announcing the plans don’t meet federal mandates.

    Kaiser Permanente, meanwhile, is canceling about 160,000 of its customers’ plans — about half of its base, the Los Angeles Times said. A majority of those who are being booted off their plans will face a rate increase from Obamacare.

    “This is when the actualy sticker shock comes into play for people,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, in the Los Angeles Times. “There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act.”

    Jennifer Harris, Fullerton resident, said she was shocked to receive a letter from her Health Net Inc. insurer that her plan — which costs $98 a month — was being dropped. The cheapest plan she said in the Los Angeles Times that she found is $238 a month.

    “It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” she said, in the report. “This increase is simply not affordable.”

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/28/californian-i-was-all-obamacare-until-i-got-bill/#ixzz2jE2eqZ4R
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  292. 292

    RE: Haybaler @ 291RE: Haybaler @ 289 – In Washington state the vast majority of those signing up on the exchange are those getting the insurance for little or nothing. Part of that though is that the people who actually have to pay are probably still assessing their options, trying to find the best option before committing.

    As to the rate increases for individuals, it’s not like our rates were cheap before! If they wanted to shove these previously uninsured into another group, it should have been the employer provided insurance group, which is much larger and likely more similar as to health conditions.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  293. 293

    Here’s a pretty good article that addresses most of the facts correctly:

    http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Affordable-Care-Act-ends-rocky-1st-month-4945060.php

    Still they are overstating the effect of additional coverage on cost. That’s not the entire story because my policy had pretty good coverage.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  294. 294
    Blurtman says:

    Next up, Angelo Mozilo to comment on Obamacare.

    “Some Democrats, like Mass. Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, say the website troubles are actually a good thing because they force the president to go out and sell the law again to the country.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57610620/obamacare-memo-reveals-health-care-adviser-warned-w.h-was-losing-control-3-years-ago/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  295. 295

    I now know why Obamacare gets rid of lifetime caps on coverage. It’s so drug companies can charge $440,000 a year for a drug.

    http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/pharma-windfall/2013/nov/9/mining-rare-diseases/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  296. 296
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 295:

    I now know why Obamacare gets rid of lifetime caps on coverage. It’s so drug companies can charge $440,000 a year for a drug.

    yeah that’s the reason. so they could do what they are already doing? brilliant analysis.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  297. 297
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 287:

    Regence has now had their rates approved. Before they were quoting me $494 a month, with a $5,000 deductible. The approved rates are under $450 a month!

    On Sunday Juan Williams was on Fox News Sunday claiming that those of us whose existing policies were cancelled would be offered new better plans that would also be cheaper. I’d like to see him explain how a $5,000 deductible is better than a $3,500 deductible, or how over $400 a month is cheaper than $239 a month. I guess he’s drank too much of the Obama Koolaid and he too has become a liar.

    check the exchanges your insurance company might not be acting in your best interests.

    Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  298. 298
    pfft says:

    By Haybaler @ 89:

    RE: pfft @ 272
    Obama admin. lowers health sign-up expectations
    The Associated Press – By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – Associated Press
    31 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) â�� The Obama administration is trying to lower expectations for strong initial enrollments under the president’s historic expansion of health coverage for the medically uninsured.

    ”Facing ongoing problems with the enrollment website, Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner told Congress on Tuesday that “we expect the initial numbers to be small.”

    An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press shows that the administration expected nearly 500,000 people to gain coverage just in October, the program’s first month. Tavenner repeatedly declined to cite enrollment numbers, saying they will not be provided until mid-November.

    House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, drew his own conclusion. He told Tavenner that by his math, the administration appears headed for less than a fourth of its October sign-up estimate.”

    the vast majority of people will sign up right before the deadline like in Mass. with Obamacare. Opps, I meant Romneycare. See Romneycare is like Obamacare that I said Romneycare instead of Obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  299. 299
    pfft says:

    I don’t believe this. A large corporation would never do this!

    Anthem Blue Cross is sued over policy cancellations
    Two California residents are suing insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross, alleging they were misled into giving up previous coverage that had been grandfathered in with respect to Obamacare.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-plan-canceled-20131105,0,2399615.story#axzz2kOwcl2Cp

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  300. 300

    By pfft @ 297:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 287:
    Regence has now had their rates approved. Before they were quoting me $494 a month, with a $5,000 deductible. The approved rates are under $450 a month!

    On Sunday Juan Williams was on Fox News Sunday claiming that those of us whose existing policies were cancelled would be offered new better plans that would also be cheaper. I’d like to see him explain how a $5,000 deductible is better than a $3,500 deductible, or how over $400 a month is cheaper than $239 a month. I guess he’s drank too much of the Obama Koolaid and he too has become a liar.

    check the exchanges your insurance company might not be acting in your best interests.

    Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare

    Well first, that’s not hiding Obamacare benefits. It’s hiding the fact that other companies might charge less. In my particular case my existing carrier does charge more than on the exchange, but the exchange is still more than my existing coverage. And there are no extra benefits that would make that extra cost worth while to me. In fact, the coverage is less because the deductible is much higher.

    I’ve yet to fully check out the network of doctors offered, but the lowest price plans have very limited networks. Not sure yet about the higher priced plans on the exchange.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  301. 301

    By pfft @ 98:

    the vast majority of people will sign up right before the deadline like in Mass. with Obamacare. Opps, I meant Romneycare. See Romneycare is like Obamacare that I said Romneycare instead of Obamacare.

    I’ll agree with you on that, but that doesn’t mean we won’t see more people who are covered now just drop coverage. Romneycare is not Obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  302. 302

    By pfft @ 96:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 295:
    I now know why Obamacare gets rid of lifetime caps on coverage. It’s so drug companies can charge $440,000 a year for a drug.

    yeah that’s the reason. so they could do what they are already doing? brilliant analysis.

    My point (that you missed) was that but for insurance these companies wouldn’t be able to charge amounts like that. Note that the article mentions pricing is different in other countries.

    BTW, the lifetime caps has been gone since renewals in 2010, so of course they are already doing it! Ignorant analysis!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  303. 303
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 301:

    By pfft @ 98:
    the vast majority of people will sign up right before the deadline like in Mass. with Obamacare. Opps, I meant Romneycare. See Romneycare is like Obamacare that I said Romneycare instead of Obamacare.

    I’ll agree with you on that, but that doesn’t mean we won’t see more people who are covered now just drop coverage. Romneycare is not Obamacare.

    how are they different? the same people who wrote romneycare wrote obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  304. 304
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 2:

    By pfft @ 96:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 295:
    I now know why Obamacare gets rid of lifetime caps on coverage. It’s so drug companies can charge $440,000 a year for a drug.

    yeah that’s the reason. so they could do what they are already doing? brilliant analysis.

    My point (that you missed) was that but for insurance these companies wouldn’t be able to charge amounts like that.

    they have always been doing that. it didn’t spring up when Obamacare hit. obamacare taxes big pharma because they will have more customers and windfall profits anyway.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  305. 305

    RE: pfft @ 304 – Yes, they have always been doing that, but the lack of caps will allow them to do that more!

    Obamacare is the medical provider and drug company dream legislation. Profits, profits and more profits, because more things are covered in higher amounts than ever before.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  306. 306
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 305:

    RE: pfft @ 304 – Yes, they have always been doing that, but the lack of caps will allow them to do that more!

    Obamacare is the medical provider and drug company dream legislation. Profits, profits and more profits, because more things are covered in higher amounts than ever before.

    and that is why big pharma is subject to taxation under Romneycare.

    So what exactly is your ultimate point? We shouldn’t cover millions of people because someone might make money? Should we then repeal the employer mandate? Medicare? Medicaid?

    Obamacare puts about $27 billion a year tax on big pharma.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/23/1249400/-Obamacare-and-tax-reform-a-progressive-double-play-Part-II

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  307. 307

    RE: pfft @ 306 – My point is what it’s always been. Obamacare is going to cause costs to rise. Only George Orwell would call it the Affordable Healthcare Act.

    Look at the chart in that Times article for the annual cost of the drug Gleevec. Unfortunately they don’t have annual data points, but in 2001 it was $30,000, in 2006-2007 it was $36,000 and in 2013 it was $92,000! That’s exactly what I would expect as a result of Obamacare and its elimination of insurance caps in 2010.

    And before you get all high and mighty about treating people, Obamacare isn’t about treating people. It’s about getting someone other than the government to pay for treating people.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  308. 308
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 307:

    RE: pfft @ 306 – My point is what it’s always been. Obamacare is going to cause costs to rise. Only George Orwell would call it the Affordable Healthcare Act.

    Look at the chart in that Times article for the annual cost of the drug Gleevec. Unfortunately they don’t have annual data points, but in 2001 it was $30,000, in 2006-2007 it was $36,000 and in 2013 it was $92,000! That’s exactly what I would expect as a result of Obamacare and its elimination of insurance caps in 2010.

    And before you get all high and mighty about treating people, Obamacare isn’t about treating people. It’s about getting someone other than the government to pay for treating people.

    so many years since it’s been signed and you don’t know anything about it! amazing!

    hey kary, there is an individual mandate!

    hey kary, the government also subsidizes some people!

    unbelievable.

    “That’s exactly what I would expect as a result of Obamacare and its elimination of insurance caps in 2010.”

    and yet we’ve been having this conversation for about 2 years and have yet to post any evidence to support your claim that drug prices and medical costs in general will rapidly inflation. it’s because you can’t. you have no evidence.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  309. 309

    By pfft @ 308:

    so many years since it’s been signed and you don’t know anything about it! amazing!

    hey kary, there is an individual mandate!

    hey kary, the government also subsidizes some people!

    unbelievable.

    What makes you think I don’t know those things? Clearly I know those things. Unlike you I am informed and educated. In any event though, not sure what any of that has to do with what I said.

    “That’s exactly what I would expect as a result of Obamacare and its elimination of insurance caps in 2010.”

    and yet we’ve been having this conversation for about 2 years and have yet to post any evidence to support your claim that drug prices and medical costs in general will rapidly inflation. it’s because you can’t. you have no evidence.

    LOL. I just post evidence of a drug going up 300% and you claim I don’t have any evidence. You’re blind to the evidence.

    The evidence of people’s individual policies going up in price even with higher deductibles is all around us. I even wrote a blog piece on it, which I updated with new links from time to time.

    http://www.trulia.com/blog/kary_l_krismer/2013/10/agents_how_will_you_be_surviving_obamacare

    I can only conclude you’re purposefully lying in denying the evidence, although your memory has been very suspect in the past. But a memory problem wouldn’t explain not considering something as evidence when it’s in the very post you’re responding to.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  310. 310

    Obama is now going to allow insurers to continue to offer the existing policies.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamato-to-announce-change-to-address-health-insurance-cancellations/2013/11/14/3be49d24-4d37-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html

    The question is, will they? I’m not going to hold my breath. This seemingly is just a way for Obama to blame the insurance companies for the mess he created. I could see though that perhaps Regence might want to offer this since they are not part of the exchange and probably don’t want to lose their existing customers. We’ll see.

    I hope Regence does offer the existing policy because they’ll be required to state what is covered in the new policies which isn’t covered by the existing. When people see that and then compare the cost, they’ll probably be even more outraged.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  311. 311
    The Tim says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 310 – Apparently here in Washington the insurance commissioner has rejected that idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/14/the-backlash-to-the-obamacare-fix-has-already-started/

    It took about three hours exactly for states to start pushing back against President Obama’s request that regulators allow insurance plans to offer current products in 2014.

    Washington state insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler has announced that he will not allow insurance companies to do so.

    “In the interest of keeping the consumer protections we have enacted and ensuring that we keep health insurance costs down for all consumers, we are staying the course,” he said in a statement moments ago. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies. I believe this is in the best interest of the health insurance market in Washington.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  312. 312

    RE: The Tim @ 311 – Wow. He’s apparently as brain dead as those advising President Obama.

    That piece also indicates Washington is one of a handful of states that prohibit early renewal. Businesses elsewhere are doing that to avoid Obamacare for a year. I had thought that they were doing that here too, but probably not. If so Washington businesses will be hit harder than their counterparts in other states.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  313. 313
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 309:

    By pfft @ 308:
    so many years since it’s been signed and you don’t know anything about it! amazing!

    hey kary, there is an individual mandate!

    hey kary, the government also subsidizes some people!

    unbelievable.

    What makes you think I don’t know those things? Clearly I know those things. Unlike you I am informed and educated. In any event though, not sure what any of that has to do with what I said.

    “That’s exactly what I would expect as a result of Obamacare and its elimination of insurance caps in 2010.”

    and yet we’ve been having this conversation for about 2 years and have yet to post any evidence to support your claim that drug prices and medical costs in general will rapidly inflation. it’s because you can’t. you have no evidence.

    LOL. I just post evidence of a drug going up 300% and you claim I don’t have any evidence. You’re blind to the evidence.

    kary you have one example of one drug that very few people use because it’s a rare disease they have. you know why the price might be going up? because before the drug was expensive but costs were held down because a lot of people couldn’t use it. maybe they now can use it. it also could be that very few people and doctors knew about the drug and didn’t use it before and now do.

    here is the kary challenge. you’ve been saying for years that our near universal system of healthcare will cause drug prices and medical and insurance costs will be catastrophic to the health system. prove it. I’ve been asking for evidence for years. not just one or two drugs. Mass and 4 or 5 other countries have out insurance mandate system. show that medical and drug costs are out of control. give me at least 1 study. preferably 3. Don’t just show me costs are going higher, all medical costs mostly are. show that they are ruining the healthcare systems like you say the ACA will here.

    I’ve already posted many times evidence that people not shopping doesn’t hurt healthcare costs.

    “Skin in the Game” Fails As a Health Care Cost Control Idea
    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/09/27/skin-in-the-game-is-failure-as-a-health-care-cost-control-idea/

    here is even a list of countries with health insurance mandates.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  314. 314

    I have one example of one drug only if you ignore the other drugs I’ve mentioned. I’ve mentioned Nasonex and Prilosec repeatedly.

    As to other topics, here’s the first month’s statistics for Washington state. Pretty pathetic, but I agree people will delay signing up. Numbers by the end of November will be more interesting, because that’s when people will need to be signed up to be covered in January–the expiration date of existing policies.

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/healthcarecheckup/2013/11/15/mostly-older-adults-signing-up-for-insurance-through-washingtons-exchange/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  315. 315

    Lots of news on Obamacare.

    First, a woman who President Obama called out as an example of the success of the act is now not getting the insurance because it’s too expensive.

    http://www.king5.com/health/care/Jessica-sanford-health-care-frustration-232502451.html

    Second, Pelosi was on one of the Sunday morning shows and apparently didn’t get President Obama’s talking points. She was denying things he’s already admitted, making her perhaps the biggest liar in a town full of liars.

    Third, Howard Dean on another Sunday show in response to someone having to pay more said that they were probably qualified for a subsidy, without knowing anything about them. Proving you have to make things up to support Obamacare!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  316. 316
    Blake says:

    This is quite good:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/11/why-does-health-care-cost-so-much-in-america-ask-harvards-david-cutler.html
    David Cutler: Let me give you three reasons why…
    The first one is because the administrative costs of running our health care system are astronomical…. Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. The typical Canadian hospital has a handful of billing clerks. Single-payer systems have fewer administrative needs.

    The second reason health care costs so much in America is that the U.S. spends more than other countries do on many of the same things. (i.e. drugs, equipment and doctors…)

    The third one is Americans receive more medical care than people do in other countries.

    >> O’Care doesn’t address the first two and makes the third actually worse!
    But great for news for the Medical Industrial Complex!!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  317. 317

    RE: Blake @ 316 – It makes the second worse too! The reason we spend so much more on the same things is our insurance system, and Obamacare is just more insurance! It will mean we will start spending even more on the same things!

    And before pfft pipes in about Massachusetts, more insurance in one state is not going to have the same results as more insurance in the entire country. For example, drug companies are not going to have separate prices for Massachusetts, but they can and do sell the same thing for different prices in different countries.

    Or alternatively, a $15 minimum wage in Sea-Tac is not going to result in any significant inflation, but try that on a national level . . ..

    As to the PBS piece, interesting what he has to say about open heart surgery here and in Canada, and the outcomes. Also, how in Massachusetts they do address the demand side by what he calls “tierring” and making sure the consumer actually knows the cost of procedures–something almost totally lacking elsewhere, including under Obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  318. 318
    Blake says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 317
    I work in heart disease research and the procedures are out of control. Several of our projects aim to reduce unnecessary procedures… check this out:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-26/deaths-linked-to-cardiac-stents-rise-as-overuse-seen.html
    … outrageous!

    Last summer my boss presented the findings from our study looking at the appropriateness of PCIs in Washington State at the statewide COPE meeting. He was graciously introduced by our then governor, but after presenting his data (cold hard facts folks…) the doctors in the audience rose up to condemn him and say he couldn’t question their decisions.

    And it’s not about defensive medicine and lawsuits (I saw an excellent presentation at the 2012 AHA meeting by a fellow at the Mayo clinic that found around a 1% increase in procedures due to that)… it’s about $… lots of it!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  319. 319

    RE: Blake @ 318 – Clearly that guy needed at least 22 stints!

    In other news, people in California also won’t be able to get by with their older policies.

    http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Calif-health-exchange-upholds-policy-cancelations-4998155.php

    They apparently can though in the very populated state of Alaska, so at least our increasingly impotent President has had some impact on something (that doesn’t involve blowing things up with drones).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  320. 320
    Scotsman says:

    Another Obama success story. I think he lied. Obama, that is:

    http://roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/2389210-12/give-back-my-health-care-policy.html

    “The new Obamacare plans are worse in every regard. They are not better and I do not save $2,500, as President Obama promised so many times.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  321. 321
    Scotsman says:

    Obama lied- healthcare and trust died. Fox News not responsible:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdmtJCEWPA&feature=youtu.be

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  322. 322
    Scotsman says:

    Dang- Obamacare has forced Seattle’s Children’s Hospital off their plans. Too bad- they saved my daughter’s life a decade ago. I though ACA was supposed to be saving lives……

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021968776_acachildrenssuitxml.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  323. 323
    Scotsman says:

    Here’s how you do it:

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=211323

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  324. 324

    More government incompetence.

    Businesses won’t be able to use the government website until November 2014. They probably don’t want people to know they will be laid off by their employer until after the mid-terms. /sarc

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/27/shop-website-delay/3768761/

    Individuals who manage to actually sign up this year via the website might have a month or two gap in their coverage. What could possibly go wrong?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-usa-healthcare-enrollment-idUSBRE9AQ13M20131127

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  325. 325
    Scotsman says:

    Thank gawd the unions and other special interests will be getting their exemptions. And that $25 billion they were going to pay? We get to pay it for them.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/27/yep-unions-get-their-exemption-from-obamacares-reinsurance-fee/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  326. 326

    RE: Scotsman @ 325 – I don’t think this is the first thing that is disappearing that was supposed to pay for Obamacare. That’s why I keep saying if this was done as a tax it would have never passed through Congress. Somehow, forcing people and companies to pay outrageous amounts of money for insurance is more acceptable than increasing taxes, even though the result is the same. The reason for the difference is people are in general ignorant and/or stupid.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  327. 327
    Blurtman says:

    So we all pay more so that the uninsurable, i.e., those with pre-existing conditions, and those with incomes too low to afford insurance, are now insured. As opposed to the uninsurable becoming bankrupted due to medical expenses and the hospitals being stuck with uncollectable bills, these folks are now insured, and the insurance companies pay the hospitals, and we all pay the insurance companies. Presumably those now insured who could not previously afford insurance will now seek medical care earlier, and not seek primary care in the ER when their illness has progressed. So Obamacare should be a benefit to the uninsurable and the poor. And everyone else pays more.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  328. 328

    RE: Blurtman @ 327 – It goes a bit beyond that, but yes. For example, you’re also going to pay more because more types of doctors are covered. So you’ll be paying for others to go see a chiropractor or mental health therapist each week, every week of the year. The people working in those professions are probably really going to benefit.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  329. 329
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 328 – Mr. Obama and his liberal allies call the old plans “substandard,” but he doesn’t mean from the perspective of the consumers who bought them. He means people were free to choose insurance that wasn’t designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals. In his view, many people must pay first-class fares for coach seats so others can pay less and receive extra benefits.

    Liberals justify these coercive cross-subsidies as necessary to finance coverage for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. But government usually helps the less fortunate honestly by raising taxes to fund programs. In summer 2009, Senate Democrats put out such a bill, and the $1.6 trillion sticker shock led them to hide the transfers by forcing people to buy overpriced products.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192081764514664

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  330. 330
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 328 – But as the previously uninsured can now access medical care under Obamacare, longer term, healthcare costs should come down, e.g., If folks seek care earlier, versus at the ER when their illness has advanced to a state that will be more expensive to treat.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  331. 331

    RE: Blurtman @ 330 – Correct, but my current policy already covers preventative care, at roughly half the cost. And I’m not sure the new subsidized policies do anything more than that, e.g. have co-pays for office visits or deductibles people are ever likely to meet absent a major problem. Not certain though, since I don’t qualify for a subsidized policy.

    In addition, the costs associated with ER visits are largely manufactured. So the cost of someone going in with an ear infection or some other simple thing is probably largely the same, if not less, at an ER.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  332. 332
    Scotsman says:

    Let’s start placing bets on how long this disaster will last. According to this article it is unfixable. I’m not sure what my favorite part is, but this has to be in the running (and now health care will be cheaper?):

    ” Healthcare.gov should have cost $5-10 million to implement. Take into account government corruption and incompetence, it should have cost $10-25 million. Instead, it cost $300-600 million — let’s say $500 million. How do we get to that figure? ”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/30/1-Dec-13-World-View-Separate-Obamacare-500M-lines-of-code-500M-only-60-completed

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  333. 333

    RE: Scotsman @ 332 – I view the webpage issues as a side-show. It may have made the public a bit more aware of the disaster that is Obamacare, but it’s not a big deal. It’s getting too much attention. The real focus should be on how much this is costing people and businesses, and how many people will be unemployed/underemployed because of Obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  334. 334

    Things needed to change. There were 40 something million people without health insurance, people were calling 911 instead of going to doctors. Health insurance costs were also rising at a rate far exceeding inflation. So if changes were made, they needed to address both of those issues. What we’re had is bad, something had to be done. Obamacare maybe takes care of insuring more people, but doesn’t address the cost issue, in fact it’s worse. My wife and I will be paying an extra 500 dollars per month, and have a smaller percentage of costs covered. It’s not exactly like we’re the Gateses, we probably make on the low end of typical Seattle Bubble readership. Obamacare is some kind of Frankenstein monster, set up to make sure that insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers were happy. About the people receiving the services? Who cares if they’re happy? So what would I have done differently? Two things. Either I would have just expanded medicare so that it covered everybody, or vastly expand the network of free/low cost clinics coupled with a requirement that people have a minimum of catastrophic coverage, just as there’s a minimum requirement for car insurance. They could have done something far simpler and far less costly.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  335. 335
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 334

    What they should have done is break up the 50 state monopolies and all the minimum standards and forced some real competition on the market. It also would have led to standardized billing and nationalized billing centers instead of the ridiculous duplication in administrative services we have now. But the government couldn’t stand the idea of giving up some control, and the health insurance companies didn’t want to give up their semi-monopolistic grip on fragmented markets. It was never about serving the people, and always about serving the political class and the interests that fund/support them. And in the process they managed to add on another layer of costs and the attendant bureaucracy. Yet the people still think more of the same is a solution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  336. 336
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 33

    I know what you’re saying, but the web page is still more than just a sideshow. It’s indicative of what’s to come and illustrates the unfathomable depths of incompetence that will surround the entire program. Once the site works it will be onto the next issue- higher costs for poorer coverage. Finally we’ll get to see who actually manages to sign up and how well the insurance companies do at actually paying for the services provided. I expect one giant cluster f#ck from the beginning to the end. And people will clamor for even more government involvement and regulation. It ends when too many checks bounce all through the economy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  337. 337
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 334 – Stop making sense.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  338. 338

    By Ira Sacharoff @ 334:

    Things needed to change. There were 40 something million people without health insurance, people were calling 911 instead of going to doctors. Health insurance costs were also rising at a rate far exceeding inflation. So if changes were made, they needed to address both of those issues. What we’re had is bad, something had to be done. Obamacare maybe takes care of insuring more people, but doesn’t address the cost issue, in fact it’s worse. .

    Yes, something needed to be done, but that doesn’t mean any change was good, and that’s what people are discovering now.

    As I’ve said repeatedly here, the reason costs were rising so fast was too much insurance, and Obamacare is just more insurance! But now we’re discovering it’s more insurance of more things, so it will make more types of procedures more expensive. When fully implemented it will be a disaster which makes the webpage issues seem like a 5 mph breeze compared to a hurricane.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  339. 339

    By Scotsman @ 35:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 334

    What they should have done is break up the 50 state monopolies and all the minimum standards and forced some real competition on the market.

    They went the other direction on the second item. States with few minimum coverage requirements are now facing some of the worst (highest) minimum coverage standards.

    It’s easy for politicians to call for higher minimum standards for coverage, because they don’t have to pay for them, and then when the premiums go up they can try to get votes by complaining about insurance companies. And higher standards are not “better” as claimed by proponents of Obamacare. Better depends on what the individual consumer wants. Less choice is not better.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  340. 340
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 339 – Consume the moloko and enjoy the horrorshow program.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  341. 341
    Blurtman says:

    Just what kind of dorks populate the Obama administration? Out of touch, elitist squares.

    This is hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpRNAkG-Nx0

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  342. 342

    I just ran a search on esurance.com for a 30 YO male non-tobacco user. They will be paying almost as much as what I am now for a $5,250 deductible, assuming they don’t get a subsidy. The cheapest was Group Health for $200 a month with a $4,000 deductible. Good luck getting a lot of people to sign up for that!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  343. 343

    The Washington site has been down for probably at least 24 hours (I don’t know when it started). Apparently they fixed the federal site by stealing people from the Washington site!

    I’m trying to determine if “doctor shock” is also going to be an issue in Washington–where you not only lose your policy, you loose your doctor. So far that isn’t true with Regence, but they are the most expensive. I would assume it’s true with the least expensive–Group Health, but that’s the nature of the beast.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  344. 344

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 343 – Apparently it may be down for almost a week–from Tuesday to next Monday.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  345. 345
    Blurtman says:

    My barber, by no means a wealthy man, was complaining that Regence (sp.?) dropped his existing plan, and his new one costs much more for a $5,000 deductible plan. This fellow used to be somewhat of a liberal, but the obvious two-tiered justice system and now Obamacare’s fallout has turned this fellow into a disillusioned American.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  346. 346

    RE: Blurtman @ 345 – I think that’s about the typical experience with Obamacare, unless you make very little money and qualify for the subsidies.

    More news on how wonderful this roll out is working. Rather obviously they needed more than three years to implement this. /sarc

    http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Feds-balk-at-paper-health-application–234894221.html

    http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Calif-health-exchange-shares-data-without-consent-234912351.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  347. 347
    Ron says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 334

    I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, which is what republicans gave us for 8 years during which time the country was experiencing a significant health care crisis.

    The republicans gave us GW Bush who will always be remembered for one thing – he attacked the wrong country for the wrong reasons and led the county into the longest and most expensive war in our nations history. Mission accomplished. It was all about money. Cash for Chaney and his buds. Now, GW paints by number while so many past presidents are out in the world trying to solve problems. Although, as a war criminal, I suppose he can’t travel much.

    Obama will be remembered for two things: being the nations first black president and leading the largest health care reform in modern times. I believe, in the end it will move the country in the right direction as apposed to doing nothing. It is too soon to tell.

    And we all know the republicans are about obstruction. A do nothing party these days unless of course you are talking about limiting women’s rights. They are passionate about that.

    At least the Democrats are trying to improve the lot of the average American as apposed to what we watched the republicans do for 8 years.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  348. 348
    whatsmyname says:

    Here’s a case where lack of gub’mint overregulation has allowed private enterprise to deliver awesome and equivalent medical service at only 40X the price.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/an-effective-eye-drug-is-available-for-50-but-many-doctors-choose-a-2000-alternative/2013/12/07/1a96628e-55e7-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

    Most Americans pay their doctor a lot more than they themselves earn. The benefit bought is to benefit of the doctor’s knowledge. That implies a fiduciary type relationship.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  349. 349
    Blurtman says:

    “Obama will be remembered for two things: being the nations first black president and leading the largest health care reform in modern times. I believe, in the end it will move the country in the right direction as apposed to doing nothing. It is too soon to tell.”

    It’s at least three things, the third being reinforcing the two-tiered justice system in the USA endorsed by his predecessor, and taking it to a level beyond even the worst president of all time. Even GWB put financial criminals behind bars.

    And yes, it is early in the Obamacare fiasco. Time will tell.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  350. 350

    By Ron @ 347:

    At least the Democrats are trying to improve the lot of the average American as apposed to what we watched the republicans do for 8 years.

    The Democrats are just trying to be re-elected (as are the Republicans). Not much of what either side is proposing will actually help anyone, and in most cases they know that.

    Reply