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. 251
  2. 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/

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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!

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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”

  15. 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…

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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….

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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?

  27. 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.

  28. 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?

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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!

  34. 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.

  35. 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.”

  36. 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.”

  37. 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.

  38. 288
  39. 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.”

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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/

  45. 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/

  46. 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.

  47. 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

  48. 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.

  49. 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

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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!

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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.”

  62. 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.

  63. 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

  64. 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/

  65. 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!

  66. 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!!

  67. 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.

  68. 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!

  69. 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).

  70. 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.”

  71. 321
    Scotsman says:

    Obama lied- healthcare and trust died. Fox News not responsible:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdmtJCEWPA&feature=youtu.be

  72. 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

  73. 323
  74. 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

  75. 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/

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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

  83. 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.

  84. 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.

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 337
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 334 – Stop making sense.

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 340
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 339 – Consume the moloko and enjoy the horrorshow program.

  91. 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

  92. 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!

  93. 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.

  94. 344

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 343 – Apparently it may be down for almost a week–from Tuesday to next Monday.

  95. 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.

  96. 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

  97. 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.

  98. 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.

  99. 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.

  100. 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.

  101. 351

    RE: whatsmyname @ 48 – Doctors don’t tend to know what things cost–only what insurance covers. My Prilosec situation is a good example of that. My doctor prescribed Prilosec which would have cost over $200 when the exact same thing as Prilosec OTC was barely over $20. And they typically write prescriptions for only 30 or 60 days, because that’s what insurance companies allow, when it’s much cheaper typically to get an entire year filled at one time.

    I’m not sure why you think the rate of pay creates a fiduciary duty.

  102. 352

    By Blurtman @ 49:

    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..

    Four things. Outright war on the Bill of Rights, expanding Bush’s war on the Fourth.

  103. 353
    Blake says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 352:

    By Blurtman @ 49:

    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..

    Four things. Outright war on the Bill of Rights, expanding Bush’s war on the Fourth.

    Kary: yes, indeed…
    http://www.salon.com/2009/05/19/obama_103/
    Obama’s embrace of Bush terrorism policies is celebrated as “Centrism”
    -snip-
    Former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith: “Many people think Cheney is scare-mongering and owes President Obama his support or at least his silence. But there is a different problem with Cheney’s criticisms: his premise that the Obama administration has reversed Bush-era policies is largely wrong. The truth is closer to the opposite: The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit.”

    Permanent war, no prosecutions… business as usual.

  104. 354
    Blake says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 46
    O’care… it gets worse and worse. But as with Consumer Reports (below) and others, there will be unrelenting propaganda efforts to put lipstick on this pig. Still… they cannot gloss over the true experiences people will have and the impact to their pocketbooks. What a friggin’ mess!
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/michael-olenick-consumer-reports-joins-obama-in-telling-obamacare-big-lies.html
    -snip- But here’s the Big Lie from Obama in his press conference of November 14, 2013: “We will continue to make the case, even to folks who choose to keep their own plans, that they should shop around in the new marketplace because there’s a good chance that they’ll be able to buy better insurance at lower cost.”

    No, Mr. President – if they earn an ordinary middle-class income and they are reasonable health they will not find more affordable insurance on the exchanges – that’s just not true.

    Once more, because the lie has been repeated so often: the more expensive Obamacare plans are not always, or even often, better insurance.

    Under Obamacare, those not covered by their employers or Medicaid – a subset of the public consisting mainly of the self employed and people working for small businesses – wind up paying enormous subsidies to help the sick. In the case of my three-person Floridian family the subsidy rate – the difference between the cost to insure ourselves and the cost to insure sick people – is about 10.5% of gross earnings. That is not the cost for insurance; that is the cost over-and-above insuring one’s family. That cost will be lower for those on subsidies, approaching non-existent – because they are the ones receiving the transfer – but for my specific family, in my specific circumstances, my calculations show that figure is 10.5%, which is obscenely high.

    No similar financial sacrifice is asked for nor required from people employed by companies with over 50 employees, or government workers, or from those who make slightly less income.

  105. 355
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 351
    Kary, shame on your doctor, although in your case it’s a little thing

    The article states that these doctors are being paid “rebates”. (Odd, since they aren’t the ones buying the drugs) And they don’t know what it costs? Is there a question that they are focused on the best interests of their patients when they are making side deals with drug companies? Do many insurance companies allow the same out of pocket for vastly different priced drugs? The cost differential here is 40X.

    Do you get rebates for referring your clients to specific title and escrow companies? (Of course you don’t) Do you not know what they charge? (Of course you do). When one is buying professional advice, they are owed absolute best efforts – not double dealing.

  106. 356

    By whatsmyname @ 355:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 351 – Do you get rebates for referring your clients to specific title and escrow companies? (Of course you don’t) Do you not know what they charge? (Of course you do). When one is buying professional advice, they are owed absolute best efforts – not double dealing.

    Probably the one similarity is that most drug reps and title reps are attractive people. ;-)

    For title and escrow what we base our referrals on is service and accuracy.

    There’s one title company I won’t name who we have refused to use for buyers for probably six years now. On one situation for another agent I reviewed, they did three reports on different properties for the same seller, and they didn’t have the same information on each report about judgments. They also had the amount wrong on a deed of trust, listing the annual payment rather than the total amount.

    But the killer was when they wouldn’t insure on one of our listings around a tax lien that they missed but agreed didn’t attach due to homestead protection, and then created a bunch of really stupid excuses (like that they didn’t know the violent love of the owner). It was something like a $5,000 lien, and they’ve lost a lot more in premiums than that because of that. And connecting up, they also lost a really good title rep and a lot of other agents’ business in part because that title rep thought that situation was BS.

    Edit: Really? A word very close to six (change i to e) gets converted to violent love?

  107. 357

    And now the Washington website is back down again, after coming back up over the weekend.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-health-exchange-up-then-back-down-again-235100131.html

    This was one of the sites pointed to as being good when the federal website launch went poorly.

    The problem is apparently only for those who might get a subsidy, but apparently they make up such a large percentage of the people using the site that they take the whole thing down.

  108. 358

    The site is back down again. I think I’m seeing a pattern. It goes down just before I try to use it. Just tried now at 5:13 and it went down at 4:30.

  109. 359

    Doctor-shock is real, and a real PITA. Apparently the insurance companies don’t have updated information for 2014 yet, so you have to call your own doctor to find out which coverage they accept. Mine won’t be covered on any of the Exchange policies, so that excludes Premera and Lifewise, but they will be covered under my old company, which is also the most expense of all my options. The difference is “only” about $30 a month, so a small part of the roughly $200 a month more I’ll be paying to see the doctor once a year.

  110. 360

    This is a great place to find all of the insurance policies offered in Washington:

    http://www.insurance.wa.gov/your-insurance/health-insurance/individuals-families/health-plans-rates/

    Unfortunately, you probably need to call your doctor first to see which companies they will be accepting in 2014.

  111. 361

    Continuing his practice of acting as the Legislative Branch, President Obama again made changes to Obamacare, allowing either no penalty or the purchase of catastrophic coverage for those whose policies were cancelled.

    I expected this to be another “Liar-In-Chief” moment, where the catastrophic coverage wouldn’t be available in Washington–as was the case with not being able to really renew your policy this year–President Obama’s last change. But surprise, surprise, the Seattle Times covers the issue:

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022500525_acacatastrophicxml.html

    Apparently catastrophic coverage is available in Washington, but isn’t really catastrophic coverage, and isn’t much cheaper. I don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face that a policy that covers three doctor visits a year is catastrophic coverage. I guess it takes years of practice lying.

  112. 362

    One of the benefits of Obamacare is supposed to be less use of emergency rooms by poor people. Guess what? That won’t happen either!

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579296580732297854

    While personally I think using emergency rooms for non-emergency use is a good use of resources and not as expensive as claimed, seemingly nothing that they told us about Obamacare is true. But when you have the President of the United States admitting he lied, what do you expect?

  113. 363
  114. 364
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 62:

    One of the benefits of Obamacare is supposed to be less use of emergency rooms by poor people. Guess what? That won’t happen either!

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579296580732297854

    While personally I think using emergency rooms for non-emergency use is a good use of resources and not as expensive as claimed, seemingly nothing that they told us about Obamacare is true. But when you have the President of the United States admitting he lied, what do you expect?

    that study is old. people just have to get used to not going to the ER like they used too. I believe this is already happening. they’ve reduced visits.

    nice try but you failed again.

  115. 365
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 61:

    Continuing his practice of acting as the Legislative Branch, President Obama again made changes to Obamacare, allowing either no penalty or the purchase of catastrophic coverage for those whose policies were cancelled.

    I expected this to be another “Liar-In-Chief” moment, where the catastrophic coverage wouldn’t be available in Washington–as was the case with not being able to really renew your policy this year–President Obama’s last change. But surprise, surprise, the Seattle Times covers the issue:

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022500525_acacatastrophicxml.html

    Apparently catastrophic coverage is available in Washington, but isn’t really catastrophic coverage, and isn’t much cheaper. I don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face that a policy that covers three doctor visits a year is catastrophic coverage. I guess it takes years of practice lying.

    yeah Kary too bad he didn’t say most people would be able to keep their plans. Most people aren’t being cancelled they are having their insurance upgraded. you want people to keep their subprime insurance that is basically a ripoff and insurance in name only?

    hey! I want to keep my car that rolls over easily! HEY! I want to keep my car that accelerates on it’s own! hey! I want to keep my car that has faulty brakes!

  116. 366
    Scotsman says:

    OK, healthcare is a right that I should be provided, even if at at public expense. Shelter is a right that I should be provided at public expense. And food is definitely a right that I should be provided, even if at public expense. I hear I can get a phone too!

    With all of my needs met- at public expense- why should I bother to work? It’s the simple life for me and more work for the fools. In all seriousness I can now live a very acceptable life on the backs of others.

  117. 367
    Scotsman says:

    Obama will be remembered as the worst president. Period. There are now more uninsured people than ever before, despite his lies and broken promises. The middle east is lost. For every person that has found a job since Obama took office 2 people have lost one or given up looking, yielding the lowest labor force participation rate since women were fully integrated into national employment. Not one major budget reform to entitlements has been enacted. The debt will double by the end of his term. Now he won’t even support his own idea- the sequester. And yeah, he happened to be half black. Twenty years from now no one will care. Those who supposedly put him into office- the millennials- now fail to support him. In fact- they are trending conservative, pragmatics with a recently learned disdain for all politicians. Nice work, little man.

  118. 368

    RE: pfft @ 363 – As to the first post, how does medial spending before the individual mandate kicks in prove that spending won’t increase afterward? That is absurd. You’re not even trying.

    As to the second post, discredit the study as old? Major fail. It shows what happened before and after coverage.

    As to the third point, the claim that the insurance was substandard is total BS. That doctors, drug companies and other practitioners got Congress to eliminate things that don’t apply to 99.9% of the people doesn’t mean those 99.9% should pay a lot more for things they don’t need. What you’re describing is the reason health care was so expensive before Omamacare. States like Washington added on more and more things that insurance had to cover, and that caused rates to skyrocket. Obamacare is that on steroids.

  119. 369

    RE: Scotsman @ 67 – That’s not the half of it. Making partisan conditions in DC even worse than they were was probably his biggest failure. Totally ignoring the Constitution, and even attacking it, ranks right up there too. And I think his increased use of drone strikes and surveillance is really going to hurt us at some point. Actually the surveillance is already hurting us as companies outside the US are now more reluctant to use products from Microsoft, Apple and Google, etc.

  120. 370
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 366:

    With all of my needs met- at public expense- why should I bother to work? It’s the simple life for me and more work for the fools. In all seriousness I can now live a very acceptable life on the backs of others.

    no you can’t. you obviously know nothing about programs for the poor.

    In reality the opposite is true, the more governments provide for the people the more successful societies become. Think of the extremely high living standards of Scandanavian countries.

  121. 371
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 67:

    Obama will be remembered as the worst president. Period. There are now more uninsured people than ever before, despite his lies and broken promises. The middle east is lost. For every person that has found a job since Obama took office 2 people have lost one or given up looking, yielding the lowest labor force participation rate since women were fully integrated into national employment. Not one major budget reform to entitlements has been enacted. The debt will double by the end of his term. Now he won’t even support his own idea- the sequester. And yeah, he happened to be half black. Twenty years from now no one will care. Those who supposedly put him into office- the millennials- now fail to support him. In fact- they are trending conservative, pragmatics with a recently learned disdain for all politicians. Nice work, little man.

    oh god, you must be my uncle or a bad chain email.

  122. 372
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 69:

    RE: Scotsman @ 67 – That’s not the half of it. Making partisan conditions in DC even worse than they were was probably his biggest failure.

    yeah right. the president has bent over backwards to court republicans. the stimulus had many sweeteners for republican support. it was $250 billion worth of tax cuts. even then they all voted against, railed against and still wrote letters asking for stimulus dollars. he negotiated for months with republicans over Obamacare. Obamacare is a conservative healthcare plan dreamed up by Cato. Obama even offered entitlement cuts.

    Remember it was the Republicans who on the night of Obama’s inauguration met and decided to block everything Obama tried to do. Remember Mitch’s number one goal was to make Obama a one-term President. Nothing about jobs!

  123. 373
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 371

    I guess when you can’t respond to a single claim personal attacks are all that’s left.

  124. 374
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 373:

    RE: pfft @ 371

    I guess when you can’t respond to a single claim personal attacks are all that’s left.

    I have a better record between the two…shouldn’t you be more humble since your election fiasco? Haven’t figured out you need new places to get information yet?

    I need sources for all your claims. you don’t even seem to understand what the sequester was meant for.

  125. 375

    By pfft @ 372:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 69:

    RE: Scotsman @ 67 – That’s not the half of it. Making partisan conditions in DC even worse than they were was probably his biggest failure.

    yeah right. the president has bent over backwards to court republicans. the stimulus had many sweeteners for republican support. it was $250 billion worth of tax cuts. even then they all voted against, railed against and still wrote letters asking for stimulus dollars. he negotiated for months with republicans over Obamacare. Obamacare is a conservative healthcare plan dreamed up by Cato. Obama even offered entitlement cuts.

    You really are delusional if you think any of that is true. But let’s just look at the end result. Do you think things are more or less partisan now than in 2008? President Obama drives people apart. If he were a real estate agent he wouldn’t be able to help negotiate the sale of a house where the seller really needed to sell and the buyer really liked the house.

  126. 376
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 375:

    By pfft @ 372:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 69:

    RE: Scotsman @ 67 – That’s not the half of it. Making partisan conditions in DC even worse than they were was probably his biggest failure.

    yeah right. the president has bent over backwards to court republicans. the stimulus had many sweeteners for republican support. it was $250 billion worth of tax cuts. even then they all voted against, railed against and still wrote letters asking for stimulus dollars. he negotiated for months with republicans over Obamacare. Obamacare is a conservative healthcare plan dreamed up by Cato. Obama even offered entitlement cuts.

    You really are delusional if you think any of that is true. But let’s just look at the end result. Do you think things are more or less partisan now than in 2008? President Obama drives people apart. If he were a real estate agent he wouldn’t be able to help negotiate the sale of a house where the seller really needed to sell and the buyer really liked the house.

    “You really are delusional if you think any of that is true.”

    really? I have a link for each and every claim! there isn’t a lot radical about barack obama. the problem is the republicans are far more extreme than they’ve been in decades while democrats are about as ideological as normal.

    let’s also not ignore the elephant in the room, the president is black in a country that has had vicious racism in it’s history.

  127. 377
    pfft says:

    Oh hell I”ll just go ahead and embarrass you by posting all the links.

    “the stimulus had many sweeteners for republican support”

    Obama sweetens stimulus for GOP
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/06/nation/na-obama-economy6

    “even then they all voted against, railed against and still wrote letters asking for stimulus dollars”

    REPORT: After Voting To Kill Recovery, 110 GOP Lawmakers Tout Its Success, Ask For More Money
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/17/82325/stimulus-hypocrisy-101/

    “he negotiated for months with republicans over Obamacare.”

    Health Care Concessions Irking Liberals
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-liberals/

    “Obamacare is a conservative healthcare plan dreamed up by Cato.”

    The irony of Republican disapproval of Obamacare
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2013/1028/The-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obamacare

    Robert Draper Book: GOP’s Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

    Newsflash people. If I say it I probably have a link for it! Haven’t you people learned by now?

  128. 378

    RE: pfft @ 377 – We’ve learned you’re delusional and gullible.

    “he negotiated for months with republicans over Obamacare.”

    Go back and check the voting on Obamacare. The negotiating he was going was to get enough Democrats to vote for it. Dems controlled both houses at the time, and had a super majority in the Senate for a time.

    On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

    After that, the Dems lost their super majority, when the Kennedy seat was lost. That meant that the Senate bill had to be passed, but Democrats in the House didn’t like it, but they had little choice. Some changes were made to make them happy, and again no Republicans voted for the bill, and 34 Democrats also voted against it.

    So tell me again how President Obama negotiated with Republicans to get Obamacare passed? /sarc

    And ignoring the numbers in both houses, President Obama was largely MIA when it came to helping negotiate the bill that eventually ended up coming to be known as Obamacare. Rather ironic really. He just wanted a bill passed, but offered little input into the process, or what he would accept or reject.

  129. 379
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 378:

    RE: pfft @ 377 – We’ve learned you’re delusional and gullible.

    “he negotiated for months with republicans over Obamacare.”

    Go back and check the voting on Obamacare. The negotiating he was going was to get enough Democrats to vote for it. Dems controlled both houses at the time, and had a super majority in the Senate for a time.

    On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

    After that, the Dems lost their super majority, when the Kennedy seat was lost. That meant that the Senate bill had to be passed, but Democrats in the House didn’t like it, but they had little choice. Some changes were made to make them happy, and again no Republicans voted for the bill, and 34 Democrats also voted against it.

    So tell me again how President Obama negotiated with Republicans to get Obamacare passed? /sarc

    And ignoring the numbers in both houses, President Obama was largely MIA when it came to helping negotiate the bill that eventually ended up coming to be known as Obamacare. Rather ironic really. He just wanted a bill passed, but offered little input into the process, or what he would accept or reject.

    I don’t have to go back and do anything. I was paying attention. you don’t remember how Obama was negotiating with moderates Republicans like that lady from Maine? Chuck Grassley was negotiating and then made the comment about not pulling the plug on grandma. Obama was talking to these people even though he had the votes because he wanted things to be bipartisan.

    Remember above all the individual mandate was dreamed up by Cato and was about of both the Heart Act and Romneycare. Romney’s people went to washington and helped craft Obamacare. There are 400 republican amendments.

    Kary, now watch me debunk your claim with your own link!

    On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group — in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate’s healthcare reform bill.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_debate.2C_2008.E2.80.9310

  130. 380
    pfft says:

    “And ignoring the numbers in both houses, President Obama was largely MIA when it came to helping negotiate the bill that eventually ended up coming to be known as Obamacare. Rather ironic really. He just wanted a bill passed, but offered little input into the process, or what he would accept or reject.”

    So we shouldn’t call it Obamacare anymore? We know why he did this. He didn’t want to make the mistake that the Clintons did and because Republicans were blocking every thing he did so he stayed behind the scenes. Remember the link I posted above about Republicans meeting on inauguration night pledging to block everything he did?

    The insurance mandate is a Republicans idea. That can’t be stressed enough.

    Conservatives Sowed Idea of Health Care Mandate, Only to Spurn It Later
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

  131. 381
    pfft says:

    And am I mistaken or did you not read the CBS article?

    “”There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it’s reaching that limit.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-liberals/

    so nice I had to post it twice!

  132. 382

    RE: pfft @ 379 – It doesn’t really matter who first came up with the very stupid idea of an insurance mandate. It’s still a stupid idea, and Republicans are just as capable, if not more so, of coming up with stupid ideas. I will admit though that it did have some initial appeal as a way to getting around the free-rider problem. It’s the secondary effects that will kill it.

    Even if you accept the idea that individual mandate legislation could be well drafted, that doesn’t mean that Obamacare was good legislation. Even Romney didn’t like the entirety of the legislation passed in Massachusetts. For Obamacare to have even half a chance of being good it had to allow for cheaper insurance, not require more expensive insurance. That seemingly should have been obvious to everyone, but it wasn’t obvious to the people who drafted it.

  133. 383
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 382:

    RE: pfft @ 379 – It doesn’t really matter who first came up with the very stupid idea of an insurance mandate. It’s still a stupid idea, and Republicans are just as capable, if not more so, of coming up with stupid ideas. I will admit though that it did have some initial appeal as a way to getting around the free-rider problem. It’s the secondary effects that will kill it.

    Even if you accept the idea that individual mandate legislation could be well drafted, that doesn’t mean that Obamacare was good legislation. Even Romney didn’t like the entirety of the legislation passed in Massachusetts. For Obamacare to have even half a chance of being good it had to allow for cheaper insurance, not require more expensive insurance. That seemingly should have been obvious to everyone, but it wasn’t obvious to the people who drafted it.

    first of all Obama couldn’t get single-payer. secondly it does work, many countries have the individual mandate. It can work.

    “Even if you accept the idea that individual mandate legislation could be well drafted, that doesn’t mean that Obamacare was good legislation. Even Romney didn’t like the entirety of the legislation passed in Massachusetts.”

    So just change it. Oh that’s right the Republicans are so against their own idea they almost caused a debt default.

    “It’s the secondary effects that will kill it.”

    So give me a case study. What country with an individual mandate has gone wrong?

    Don’t think I didn’t notice you went from Obama didn’t consult with Republicans to ok it was their idea but it’s a bad idea.

    Now balance all the problems versus someone with a bad medical condition finally after years or decades being able to get medical care.

    Also you spent the last year blaming Obamacare for rising premiums and then when I point out healthcare costs aren’t exploding you say Obamacare isn’t in affect yet. If healthcare costs were going to skyrocket they we would have seen it as markets anticipate this. They haven’t. I realize for the doubters this is a problem but not for the rest of us.

  134. 384
  135. 385

    RE: pfft @ 384 – I’d be optimistic too if I were the head of an insurance company. I’d be pulling in at least 7 figures in salary and benefits, and there are already government programs to make sure that continues to happen for at least three more years!

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/13/3155631/debunking-obamacare-myth-insurance-company-bailout/

    And assuming those programs don’t work, does anyone on earth believe that there wouldn’t be a bailout? People debate whether the federal government got the banks into the housing mess, but I don’t think there could be any serious debate that the federal government got them into the mess of Obamacare.

  136. 386
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 385:

    RE: pfft @ 384 – I’d be optimistic too if I were the head of an insurance company.

    you’re changing the subject and being a little flip. CEOs don’t want anything messing with their business. They certainly don’t want their business to go so wrong they need a bailout. They would probably lose their job. You are understating the risks.

    The individual mandate is not new. There are about 5 countries with the mandate and of course Massachusetts. At it’s core the individual mandate is simple. The government requires everyone to get insurance will help those that need help paying premiums. There will be bumps but it isn’t rocket science. We’ve instituted many reforms over the years. Medicaid, medicare, various CHIP programs, medicare part d and now the ACA. It’s going to work.

    Single-payer is slowly gaining traction.

    Single-Payer Is Not Dead
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/14/single-payer_is_not_dead_121220.html

  137. 387

    RE: pfft @ 386 – I’ll add CEOs to the list of things you don’t know about. It’s been a huge problem in the US for decades that CEOs don’t have the long term interests of the corporations they run in mind. They’re all about short term, and promoting the stock price at the end of the next quarter.

    And I’m not against single payer. That would be better than Obamacare.

  138. 388
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 387:

    RE: pfft @ 386 – I’ll add CEOs to the list of things you don’t know about. It’s been a huge problem in the US for decades that CEOs don’t have the long term interests of the corporations they run in mind. They’re all about short term, and promoting the stock price at the end of the next quarter.

    right right.

    how do you know they aren’t talking about the short-term? let’s read the article.

    “Although they may garner the most headlines, we do not expect the new health benefit marketplaces to be a significant factor to 2014 earnings,” Lake writes. “We think the downside risk of low initial enrollment for large, diversified managed care companies is limited given that this is a relatively small portion of their business.”

  139. 389

    RE: pfft @ 388 – Huh? I say they’re talking about the short term and you ask what makes me think they’re not talking about the short term?

    But on the topic of short term, it looks like the insurance companies will be making out like a bandit because they didn’t get the signup they were expecting of extra sick people, but are charging premiums to cover it. I suspect though that it’s too early to determine that, and that will likely vary by company in any event.

  140. 390

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/usa-fiscal-obamacare-idUSL2N0L91C920140204

    Short story, the CBO says Obamacare sucks and is stupid, but we already knew that.

  141. 391
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 390:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/usa-fiscal-obamacare-idUSL2N0L91C920140204

    Short story, the CBO says Obamacare sucks and is stupid, but we already knew that.

    so it sucks that instead of working solely for insurance benefits people can now retire with affordable healthcare after working for decades to spend time with their families?

    nice to know!

    Obamacare is a job creator.

    Reduced health care costs for employers could lead to 200,000 to 400,000 new jobs per year by the second half of the decade

    Officials: Slower health spending growth may boost jobs
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/20/health-care-spending-growth/3650243/

  142. 392
    pfft says:

    Some days it’s just too easy…

  143. 393

    RE: pfft @ 391 – Reduced healthcare costs for employers. Stop it! I can’t stop laughing!

    Oh, and a White House source–very credible. The same source that said you could keep your insurance, that you could keep your doctor, and that the policies would be more affordable.

  144. 394
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 393:

    RE: pfft @ 391 – Reduced healthcare costs for employers. Stop it! I can’t stop laughing!

    Oh, and a White House source–very credible. The same source that said you could keep your insurance, that you could keep your doctor, and that the policies would be more affordable.

    do you deny that healthcare costs are lower? they are it will take even less googling to debunk that than it took to embarrass your reuters link.

    “The same source that said you could keep your insurance, that you could keep your doctor, and that the policies would be more affordable.”

    for the vast majority of people this is true. I am in my 30s, I would gladly trade a new doctor for never having to worry about healthcare. Some people say I should be angry that Obamacare might help older Americans at the expense of me.

  145. 395

    By pfft @ 394:

    for the vast majority of people this is true.

    More BS from pfft. Unless you get a subsidy the policies are more expensive for just about everyone.

  146. 396
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 395:

    By pfft @ 394:

    for the vast majority of people this is true.

    More BS from pfft. Unless you get a subsidy the policies are more expensive for just about everyone.

    nobody said that healthcare costs were not going to grow! next! healthcare has been getting more expensive forever. keep trying!

  147. 397
    pfft says:

    Republicans were against job lock before they were for it! They’ll do a 180 on any of their beliefs depending on whether Obama is for or against it. They were for the stimulus before they were against it. They were for Obamacare(because they invented it) before they were against it.

  148. 398

    By pfft @ 396:

    nobody said that healthcare costs were not going to grow! next! healthcare has been getting more expensive forever. keep trying!

    Three words: Affordable Care Act.

  149. 399
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 398:

    By pfft @ 396:

    nobody said that healthcare costs were not going to grow! next! healthcare has been getting more expensive forever. keep trying!

    Three words: Affordable Care Act.

    For almost 10 million people it’s true. They also think that Obamacare is slightly reducing the growth in healthcare spending. that’s very good and adds up over time.

  150. 400

    RE: pfft @ 399 – The economy is reducing health care spending. Obamacare does nothing to reduce spending–it only reduces government spending on health care.

  151. 401
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 400:

    RE: pfft @ 399 – The economy is reducing health care spending. Obamacare does nothing to reduce spending–it only reduces government spending on health care.

    link please. Obamacare has just about every cost reducing measure that is out there included in it.

    “Obamacare does nothing to reduce spending–it only reduces government spending on health care.”

    shocking ignorance. the government is a huge player in the healthcare market. if it pushes down costs that reverberates in a good way throughout the economy.

    it’s odd you would say that since your position has always been that government spending in the form of obamacare is going to wreck the healthcare system through higher costs…

    perhaps you really don’t know what you believe or you will just say anything if it makes Obamacare look bad?

    Also:

    GOPers Oughta Love Obamacare: It Likely Encourages Entrepreneurship
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-entrepreneurship

  152. 402
    pfft says:

    Crist: Rick Scott To Blame For Deaths Through Refusal To Expand Medicaid
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/charlie-crist-rick-scott-expand-medicaid-deaths-florida

  153. 403
    pfft says:

    I’ll spoil the article for you. routine.

    Delaying Parts of Obamacare: ‘Blatantly Illegal’ or Routine Adjustment?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

  154. 404

    RE: pfft @ 403 -President Obama has trampled on the Constitution and Bill of Rights so much that this doesn’t really matter much in comparison. It’s like worrying about a wart on a corpse. The Constitution is being murdered, and no one cares.

  155. 405
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 404:

    RE: pfft @ 403 -President Obama has trampled on the Constitution and Bill of Rights so much that this doesn’t really matter much in comparison. It’s like worrying about a wart on a corpse. The Constitution is being murdered, and no one cares.

    totally false.

  156. 406

    RE: pfft @ 405 – We live in a country where over half the population doesn’t care about widespread illegal surveillance because it helps fight terrorism and Congress is overseeing it. The Fifth Amendment is dead.

    We live in a country where more people care about whether a NJ governor affected traffic than about the President of the United States having ordered the killing of an American citizen and is planning a repeat, because they are accused of being a terrorist. The right to a trial by jury and Due Process are dead.

    We live in a country where the population accepts without issue legislation enacted by politicians that makes it more likely incumbents stay in power, but get upset when the Supreme Court overrules their actions as a clear violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is dead.

    So yes, the Consitution is dead and the fact that Obama isn’t following the niceties of having laws enacted by Congress before changing Obamacare really isn’t that big of a deal. It is, however, further evidence that the Constitution is dead. The political ruling class has won, and the people don’t care.

  157. 407
    pfft says:

    oh noz!

    Obamacare Enrollments Continue Piling Up In January, Now 3.3 Million
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-enrollment-january

  158. 408

    RE: pfft @ 407 – Gullible much? Ignoring the fact that the number is only about 1% of the population (insignificant), the number means nothing because many of those people may have come from existing plans when they were FORCED to switch coverage. The numbers we need to find out are the total insured. Washington state just recently released that number for 2012, so we may be waiting a while.

    BTW, post 406 is the answer to the question you just asked in the weekly open thread–cases that prove the Constitution is dead.

  159. 409

    RE: pfft @ 407 – You really should try to find some better news sources.

    Many questions, however, remain unanswered. Officials still can’t say how many of those who signed up have actually paid their premiums, or how many of those who enrolled were previously covered by insurance and how many were uninsured.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/12/276000210/after-january-surge-more-than-3-million-have-enrolled-in-obamacare?live=1&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

  160. 410
    pfft says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 409according to the NYT the number is 20% who haven’t paid their premium. that’s progress though because so many have signed up that isn’t even an issue anymore. the conversation has moved on to more esoteric things. that shows progress. also that the opponents keep moving the goalposts when wrong.

  161. 411
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 8:

    RE: pfft @ 407 – Gullible much? Ignoring the fact that the number is only about 1% of the population (insignificant), the number means nothing because many of those people may have come from existing plans when they were FORCED to switch coverage. The numbers we need to find out are the total insured. Washington state just recently released that number for 2012, so we may be waiting a while.

    BTW, post 406 is the answer to the question you just asked in the weekly open thread–cases that prove the Constitution is dead.

    according to gallup the number of uninsured has plunged.

    ” Gullible much? Ignoring the fact that the number is only about 1% of the population (insignificant)”

    10 million people is not insignificant. keep trying!

    “the number means nothing because many of those people may have come from existing plans when they were FORCED to switch coverage.”

    before Obamacare people were dropped all the time. so much so that people embraced a new system.

  162. 412

    By pfft @ 410:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 409according to the NYT the number is 20% who haven’t paid their premium. that’s progress though because so many have signed up that isn’t even an issue anymore. the conversation has moved on to more esoteric things. that shows progress. also that the opponents keep moving the goalposts when wrong.

    Ignoring the fact that the percent that haven’t paid is only one fact we need to know, I’m glad the NYT can give us information that isn’t available. As I asked before, gullible much?

    As to moving the goal posts, the sign ups are clearly below the government’s goals. If anyone is going to move the goal posts it’s not going to be the critics of Obamacare.

  163. 413

    By pfft @ 11:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 8:

    RE: pfft @ 407 – Gullible much? Ignoring the fact that the number is only about 1% of the population (insignificant), the number means nothing because many of those people may have come from existing plans when they were FORCED to switch coverage. The numbers we need to find out are the total insured. Washington state just recently released that number for 2012, so we may be waiting a while.

    BTW, post 406 is the answer to the question you just asked in the weekly open thread–cases that prove the Constitution is dead.

    according to gallup the number of uninsured has plunged.

    ” Gullible much? Ignoring the fact that the number is only about 1% of the population (insignificant)”

    10 million people is not insignificant. keep trying!

    “the number means nothing because many of those people may have come from existing plans when they were FORCED to switch coverage.”

    before Obamacare people were dropped all the time. so much so that people embraced a new system.

    First, the Gallup information is not a valid source. It’s based on polling, and likely changes from month to month more than the “real” numbers. And in any case, that number was not “plunging.” The themselves describe the change as “modest,” and even using their numbers we are at about the same level as a year ago.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/166982/uninsured-rate-shows-initial-decline-2014.aspx

    Second, 1% is 1%. 1% is insignificant even if it is 10 million (which it isn’t–your math skills suck).

    Third, no one has embraced Obamacare. Go back to Gallup and see how popular it is.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

    But in any case, in addition to quitting making up facts you should quit trying to deflect from the fact that the number of people buying on the exchange doesn’t indicate an increase in sales. That would be like trying to point to the sales of a single auto manufacturer and claiming that their increase in sales is an increase in total sales. Don’t you understand anything? That’s a pretty simple point.

  164. 414
    pfft says:

    12-16 million people are now covered under the ACA.

    http://acasignups.net/

  165. 415
    Blake says:

    http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-one-thing-that-could-save.html
    -snip-
    Simply, health insurance plans that cost middle-class individuals and families 10% of their after-tax income and have average Silver Plan deductibles of more than $2,500 a month are not attractive and people won’t buy them any more enthusiastically next fall than they already have. See: Obamacare: The Uninsured Are Not Signing Up Because the Dogs Don’t Like It

    Doubling the fines for not buying in 2015 will only give the Democrats more political problems––and it doesn’t look to me like they are going to enforce the fines anyway.

    Health insurance plan executives are now faced with a daunting decision. How do they price the 2015 Obamacare exchange plans?

    Even if the administration announces they have signed-up about 6 million people by March 31, the number of people enrolling would be well below expectations––only about 25% of those subsidy eligible will have signed up by the deadline. An enrollment that small guarantees the risk pool is sicker and more expensive than it needs to be in order to be sustainable.

    But dramatically increasing the rates will only assure even fewer healthy people will sign up for 2015 and some of those who signed up for 2014 will back out over the higher rates. This is what a “death spiral” looks like.

  166. 416

    RE: pfft @ 414 – How many of that number were uninsured previously? How many that were insured previously are not now insured? How many people were insured outside the exchanges?

    Stated differently: Why do you post useless stats? We’ve gone over this before. Don’t you remember?

    RE: Blake @ 415 – It’s hard to imagine that the rates could increase more than they already have. But I read another article this morning indicating that they are expecting exactly that. If that happens, even more people will drop out.

  167. 417
    Blake says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 416
    Kary… you know the insurance corps will increase the rates every penny they can get away with… that is their nature. Unfortunately, with the government now more involved providing subsidies, this means that they can probably get away with even more! It could get very very ugly…

    And remember: The cost of U$ health care is a huge tax on everything we produce – – especially for export. A car produced in Canada costs thousands less than one produced in the US just because of healthcare costs for the workers.

    Obama seemed to set his goal towards covering the uninsured and not reducing health care costs (doing such would have upset so many of the Democrats’ big funders). And it looks like he’ll reduce the uninsured from 45 million to 30 million… wow. (not to mention that their insurance is marginal at best and expensive…) What a boondoggle… cui bono??

  168. 418
    Blake says:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-studies-raise-red-flags-093000430.html
    -snip-
    While the White House can claim credit for a net increase of 9.3 million insured and a lowered uninsured rate from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent, the data provides a significantly different picture than that painted by President Obama and the ACA’s advocates.

    First, a significant amount of this increase comes from Medicaid enrollments, not private insurance. Almost six million people enrolled in Medicaid, and earlier studies showed that a relatively small number of those came from the expansion built into the ACA; most of these would have been Medicaid-eligible prior to the reform.

    Another 8.2 million more people enrolled in employer-provided health care, as 7.1 million left the “other” category and another 1.6 million left the individual insurance markets. Only 3.9 million actually enrolled in insurance plans through state or federal exchanges – not 7.1 million as claimed by Obama. That number falls far short of even the lowered expectations issued by HHS and the White House earlier this year.

    Moreover, those who did enroll through the state exchanges didn’t provide the demographic lift and risk-pool support needed to prevent massive increases in either premiums or deductibles, or both, in the near future. Pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts, which collected more data from insurers than HHS managed through its own exchanges, determined that the incoming enrollees require more medical attention than the previous risk pools, not less – which means that insurers will need to raise premiums even more than first thought.

    As Express Scripts, which studied changes in pharmacy benefits concludes that the ACA has succeeded in getting coverage to consumers who need it. However, that comes at a high cost for those who had their existing coverage canceled and saw their premiums and deductibles skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. Furthermore, the number of those who gained coverage may be even smaller than the RAND study concluded.

    Of those who enrolled in an exchange plan, Express Scripts finds, 43 percent already had Express Scripts coverage in 2013 – and at least some of the other 57 percent may have had coverage under another prescription-medication management service. If the total number of actual exchange enrollees is 3.9 million, the final number of previously uninsured exchange consumers may be only as high as 2.23 million.

    The debate on the law is far from over. When the next round of premium increases hits over the summer, and the market for employer-provided health insurance undergoes the same kind of massive disruption as the individual market did over the last six months, the debate over the honesty and integrity of the Obama administration may hit new levels of intensity.

  169. 419

    RE: Blake @ 418RE: Blake @ 417 – The Insurance commissioner still has to approve the rates, so presumably the companies were able to show something that would indicate they’d be paying out a lot more under these policies.

    It’s hard to imagine the premiums going even higher, but I wouldn’t rule that out. I’ve said in the past that part of Obamacare was the government shifting the cost from themselves to the people who pay for premiums.

  170. 420
    pfft says:

    Obamacare has won. Move along now.

  171. 421
    Blake says:

    Nice job Barack… Turns out he is a socialist… a corporate socialist! Finding more ways for the public sector to subsidize the corporate sector and increase private profits!
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chart-kills-employer-sponsored-healthcare-125900397.html
    A new report by S&P Capital IQ shows exactly why companies can’t resist shifting the burden of providing health care to the feds. The report says:
    •By shifting insurance to the employee, the Affordable Care Act presents an opportunity for U.S. companies to radically redefine the role they play in the health care system.
    •The ACA could save S & P 500 companies nearly $700 billion through 2025, about 4 percent of those companies’ current market capitalization.
    •If all U.S. companies with 50 or more employees made the switch, the total savings to businesses could be as high as $3.25 trillion through 2025.
    •The shift benefits employers the most as the government and consumers take on a larger funding role.

  172. 422

    I sure am glad that Obamacare has so many provisions to help control costs. That’s probably explains why the generic prescription I bought last year for $33.81 cost $66.67 this year. Same drug store and same brand of generic.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.