Posted by: Timothy Ellis (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.

419 responses to “Health Care Open Thread II”

These comments are paged! This is page 1. Navigate the pages here:
1 2 3 5
  1. whatsmyname

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. pfft

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 5:

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

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

    I’ve alway been for medicare for all.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. pfft

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. Kary L. Krismer

    Good example of how insurance affects pricing:

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. softwarengineer

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 10

    Yes Kary

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. pfft

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 14:

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

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

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

    unbelievable.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 17:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 17:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 18:

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

    If your only criteria is coverage, sure.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 20:

    If your only criteria is coverage, sure.

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 24:

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

    of course ending medicare isn’t a great idea.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. Kary L. Krismer

    Here’s an interesting article on health insurance:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 26:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 28:

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 29:

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. pfft

    newt called the plan a radical right-wing plan.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 33:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. pfft

    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:

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

    won’t do much for savings.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 37:

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

    won’t do much for savings.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 36:

    look at the travesty that is Obamacare!

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 39:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 38:

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

    won’t do much for savings.

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

    why would it crash?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 40:

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 41:

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

    won’t do much for savings.

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

    why would it crash?

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 43:

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

    won’t do much for savings.

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

    why would it crash?

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 42:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 44:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 47:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 46:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 50:

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

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

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

    Romneycare is VERY popular.

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  55. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 52:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  56. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 55:

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

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

    No what matters is what it costs.

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  57. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:

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

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

    No what matters is what it costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    which is why romneycare was passed genius.

    about costs.

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  58. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 57:

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

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

    No what matters is what it costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  59. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  60. Dewams

    Mr. Krismer-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  61. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  62. pfft the wise

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 58:

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

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

    No what matters is what it costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  63. pfft the wise

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 61:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  64. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 59:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  65. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  66. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 64:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  67. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 64:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  68. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 65:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  69. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 67:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  70. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 66:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  71. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  72. Scotsman

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  73. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  74. pfft

    By Scotsman @ 72:

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

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

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

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

    I guess you can’t take a joke?

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  75. pfft

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

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

    he said that in 2007.

    worst. call. ever.

    he’s a supply-side clown.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  76. pfft

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  77. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  78. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 77:

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

    huh? we pay taxes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  79. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 78:

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

    huh? we pay taxes.

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  80. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  81. Kary L. Krismer

    From the global thread:

    By Scotsman @ 75:

    Dang those unintended consequences:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  82. David Losh

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

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

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

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

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

    The mandate of the insurance industry is to generate profits.

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  83. Spherical

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  84. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  85. Kary L. Krismer

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 84:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  86. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 84:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  87. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 86:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  88. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  89. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 88:

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

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

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

    or they are not discriminating against women?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  90. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  91. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  92. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    And people wonder why this is a jobless recovery.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  93. pfft
  94. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  95. pftt

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 94:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  96. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  97. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 96:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  98. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  99. Scotsman

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

    ‘What the hell could
    possibly go wrong?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  100. David Losh

    RE: Scotsman @ 99

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

These comments are paged! This is page 1. Navigate the pages here:
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply

Do you want a nifty avatar picture next to your name, instead of a photograph of Tim's dog? Just sign up with Gravatar, and make sure to use the same email address in the form below. It's that easy!

Please read the rules before posting a comment.

You have 500 comments remaining on this post.

Archives

Find us on Google+