Posted by: 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 responses to “Health Care Open Thread II”

These comments are paged! This is page 3. Navigate the pages here:
1 2 3 4 5
  1. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 100:

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

    Of course it can regulate health care. That’s like saying the sun rises in the east.

    The question is in regulating health care can the government force people into the market? The only justification for that seems to be that other government regulation of the health care market has screwed up the market so bad that an individual mandate is necessary. Under that theory the government could do anything if it screws something up! Price supports for wheat lead to shortages, then kill 30 million people to compensate. After all, they can regulate commerce!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Kary L. Krismer

    This is crazy. Apparently the state spends about $800 a month on health insurance for full time employees.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017889933_needle02m.html

    I spend less than $500 a month on insurance and non-covered items.

    That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets. It’s being spent on health care services which wouldn’t be spent if people actually cared what they spent on health care. That drives up the cost of medical services for everyone, and harms people without insurance.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:

    This is crazy. Apparently the state spends about $800 a month on health insurance for full time employees.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017889933_needle02m.html

    I spend less than $500 a month on insurance and non-covered items.

    That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets. It’s being spent on health care services which wouldn’t be spent if people actually cared what they spent on health care. That drives up the cost of medical services for everyone, and harms people without insurance.

    link please.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 1:

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

    Of course it can regulate health care. That’s like saying the sun rises in the east.

    The question is in regulating health care can the government force people into the market? The only justification for that seems to be that other government regulation of the health care market has screwed up the market so bad that an individual mandate is necessary. Under that theory the government could do anything if it screws something up! Price supports for wheat lead to shortages, then kill 30 million people to compensate. After all, they can regulate commerce!

    if you know anything about the healthcare market you know that your wheat analogy is wrong. the individual mandate is needed because private health insurance is so screwed up with it’s high administrative costs, lifetime caps, yearly caps, pre-existing conditions and the like that in order to make it better w/o bankrupting the industry we need a mandate.

    if you were right and mandates drove costs up to unsustainable levels like you say Mass. healthcare would be a basket case but it isn’t.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 3:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
    This is crazy. Apparently the state spends about $800 a month on health insurance for full time employees.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017889933_needle02m.html

    I spend less than $500 a month on insurance and non-covered items.

    That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets. It’s being spent on health care services which wouldn’t be spent if people actually cared what they spent on health care. That drives up the cost of medical services for everyone, and harms people without insurance.

    link please.

    Seriously, you don’t think pumping $300 a month extra into health care every month for every employee of King County is going to drive up prices.

    Take a course on economics!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: pfft @ 4 – My wheat analogy just shows that because government screws something up it doesn’t allow them to do whatever they happen to think of to fix it. Do you seriously deny that?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 205:

    By pfft @ 3:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
    This is crazy. Apparently the state spends about $800 a month on health insurance for full time employees.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017889933_needle02m.html

    I spend less than $500 a month on insurance and non-covered items.

    That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets. It’s being spent on health care services which wouldn’t be spent if people actually cared what they spent on health care. That drives up the cost of medical services for everyone, and harms people without insurance.

    link please.

    Seriously, you don’t think pumping $300 a month extra into health care every month for every employee of King County is going to drive up prices.

    Take a course on economics!

    you made specific comments. link please. for example

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

    link please.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 6:

    RE: pfft @ 4 – My wheat analogy just shows that because government screws something up it doesn’t allow them to do whatever they happen to think of to fix it. Do you seriously deny that?

    the wheat market is NOT the same as health insurance. first of all one of the reason we have mandates is that people are not denied medical care when it is needed. hospitals and taxpayers pick up the tab. this costs more because people go to ERs instead of getting more effect care.

    please show an example of mandates driving up health care costs and bankrupting the system like you have claimed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: pfft @ 7 – There are stories in the Seattle Times about insurance companies increasing their reserves, but profits are highly regulated. Try to learn something about the topic you seem to have so much interest in. Your knee jerk Obama did it so it must be good analysis gets a bit tiring.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 8:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 6:
    RE: pfft @ 4 – My wheat analogy just shows that because government screws something up it doesn’t allow them to do whatever they happen to think of to fix it. Do you seriously deny that?

    the wheat market is NOT the same as health insurance. first of all one of the reason we have mandates is that people are not denied medical care when it is needed. hospitals and taxpayers pick up the tab. this costs more because people go to ERs instead of getting more effect care.

    please show an example of mandates driving up health care costs and bankrupting the system like you have claimed.

    I’m not saying wheat is the same as health. I’m addressing the powers of the federal government, specifically the power of the federal government to force the people to enter the market and buy a product. That is a new power recognized seemingly by everyone but you.

    For the example of the mandates driving up costs, that would be a bit tough since the mandates are not in place yet. Fortunately though I can point to Massachusetts. It hasn’t bankrupted their system yet (because it’s not nationwide), but costs there are through the roof.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 207:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 205:
    By pfft @ 3:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 202:
    This is crazy. Apparently the state spends about $800 a month on health insurance for full time employees.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017889933_needle02m.html

    I spend less than $500 a month on insurance and non-covered items.

    That extra money isn’t just going into insurance company pockets. It’s being spent on health care services which wouldn’t be spent if people actually cared what they spent on health care. That drives up the cost of medical services for everyone, and harms people without insurance.

    link please.

    Seriously, you don’t think pumping $300 a month extra into health care every month for every employee of King County is going to drive up prices.

    Take a course on economics!

    you made specific comments. link please. for example

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

    link please.

    Here you go.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017719785_insurance11m.html

    Two of the three big companies actually lost money last year, but they were increasing their reserves.

    Amazing how their critics don’t like insurance companies having reserves. It’s not like building those up to a certain point increases long term costs, and it does protect the solvency of the entities. It would be like arguing a condo association is somehow being irresponsible building reserves. But hey, if your an elected official, it gets the votes of morons.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 209:

    RE: pfft @ 7 – There are stories in the Seattle Times about insurance companies increasing their reserves, but profits are highly regulated. Try to learn something about the topic you seem to have so much interest in. Your knee jerk Obama did it so it must be good analysis gets a bit tiring.

    like I said before Washington’s system is not a model of anything because they screwed up by having no mandate.

    “Your knee jerk Obama did it so it must be good analysis gets a bit tiring.”

    Mandates were a gesture to Republicans. Mandates were first proposed by liberal Senator Orin Hatch. I don’t want mandates I want single-payer so don’t blame me like that.

    Mandates are Constitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. Scotsman
  14. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. Kary L. Krismer

    Here’s an interesting article about issues with consumers making decisions regarding their health care, and how (and to some extent why) they do a lousy job of it.

    http://www.techweb.com/news/232900154/why-healthcare-cost-reports-fail-consumers.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. Kary L. Krismer

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

    I go to the Mason Clinic to have the doctor look at and remove a cyst under my arm. He says it’s too irritated, so he gives it a shot and has me schedule a new appointment for removal.

    I get the bill. They reduced amounts because I have insurance are $186 to see the doctor. That’s okay, he’s a specialist. $99.00 for the shot! But the kicker is, because he gave me a shot, the hospital, which I wasn’t even at, charges $75 for the exam room, claiming the shot is somehow a hospital procedure.

    People with traditional insurance would pay a $25 co-pay and not care that their insurance company is being ripped off, not realizing that the charge will get passed on in the form of higher insurance premiums. But then, most people with traditional insurance don’t pay the premiums, so they don’t care about that either!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. Kary L. Krismer
  18. Kary L. Krismer

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

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-most-americans-want-all-or-part-of-health-law-overturned-20120607

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 218:

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

    obamacare when polled on the specific parts is very popular. many of those unhappy with obamacare still want to keep it or improve it. a minority wants to do away with it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 16:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 220:

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

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

    Quit posting incorrect facts. Massachusetts has had prices skyrocket, despite the fact that they were already the highest in the nation before Romneycare.

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

    And once again your memory sucks. This has already been covered.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 221:

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

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

    Quit posting incorrect facts. Massachusetts has had prices skyrocket, despite the fact that they were already the highest in the nation before Romneycare.

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

    And once again your memory sucks. This has already been covered.

    costs have not skyrocketed in Mass.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/charts-six-ways-romneycare-changed-massachusetts/2012/04/12/gIQAGXuhCT_blog.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: pfft @ 22 – LOL. Is that site a joke? Apparently health care costs being controlled in Massachusetts isn’t something the politicians know anything about. They’re currently trying to pass legislation to help control the spiraling costs.

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9V7O7680.htm

    And things are not as rosy in that state as you claim.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/12/poll_sick_adults_in_massachusetts_struggle_with_health_costs_despite_insurance_coverage/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. pfft

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

    more proof:

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

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-is-no-one-talking-about-massachusetts/2012/05/22/gIQATLP6hU_blog.html

    that should settle that…

    of course the ONLY thing that really matters is that the number of people with insurance in Mass is above 90% and it’s making people healthier.

    Study: Romneycare is making Massachusetts healthier
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/study-romneycare-is-making-massachusetts-healthier/2011/08/25/gIQA524T7R_blog.html

    Around 5 countries have insurance mandates like ours, why are their costs half of ours are if you are right? the answer of course is that you are wrong.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 24:

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

    In addition to a course on economics you need to take a course on basic math. If something is already the highest in the nation, it’s most likely to rise at lower rates than the rest of the nation if you’re working on a percentage basis.

    So, for example, if insurance costs $400 a month in Massachusetts to start, and it goes up $40, that will “only” be a 10% increase. In a state where insurance costs $300 that same 40 increase would be a larger percentage, and Massachusetts would do better in comparison.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 225:

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

    In addition to a course on economics you need to take a course on basic math. If something is already the highest in the nation, it’s most likely to rise at lower rates than the rest of the nation if you’re working on a percentage basis.

    So, for example, if insurance costs $400 a month in Massachusetts to start, and it goes up $40, that will “only” be a 10% increase. In a state where insurance costs $300 that same 40 increase would be a larger percentage, and Massachusetts would do better in comparison.

    what? just say it kary: I was wrong!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. Kary L. Krismer

    Here we are, presumably on the morning of the decision.

    Assuming the decision comes down today, and the court doesn’t somehow duck the decision, this could be the biggest decision since Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade, or maybe even some decisions from the 1930s. And it won’t be that because of the subject matter–health care. It could be that because of what the Court says about the scope of the commerce clause and the powers of the federal government.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. Kary L. Krismer

    Maybe not a far reaching decision after all. Upheld, but not based on the Commerce Clause.

    Still a bad decision for health care in this country, but not an extremely far reaching bad decision.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. Kary L. Krismer

    I’m only through the first part which deals with the mandate and the tax, but not the Medicare holding. That part is a very well written decision by Court standards. Very understandable. The average person with a college degree could read and understand the decision.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. Kary L. Krismer

    The Medicare portion of the opinion either was not was well written, or not a topic I’m as interested in. It was a snoozefest.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. Kary L. Krismer

    Here’s a recent survey that shows not only that independents don’t like Obamacare, but also that Republicans don’t like it more than Democrats like it.

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. ChrisM

    Fun post here arguing to game the system. Simply pay the penalty and only actually get insurance once you have a critical need. This, of course, will bankrupt the system:

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-to-game-obamacare-and-eventually.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: ChrisM @ 235 – And before it bankrupts the system, those with insurance will have to pay more–a lot more.

    And now that it’s a “tax,” there’s no way in hell that Congress will increase the penalty, so the problem will not be fixed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. Scotsman

    “So … Obama was against raiding Medicare to fund an “ill-conceived, badly thought through plan” to reform the health-care system before he was the author of those cuts to fund ObamaCare. Gotcha”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/17/ryan-were-going-to-keep-pressing-our-medicare-advantage/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. pfft

    By Scotsman @ 237:

    “So â�¦ Obama was against raiding Medicare to fund an â��ill-conceived, badly thought through planâ�� to reform the health-care system before he was the author of those cuts to fund ObamaCare. Gotcha”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/17/ryan-were-going-to-keep-pressing-our-medicare-advantage/

    there were no cuts. we simply got a group discount on medical care. can you name what those cuts to medicare were or are? what medical care did seniors get that they won’t get now?

    ryan had nearly the same in his budget. he ended medicare as we know it and voucherized it. obama is leading in the medicare polls, keep pressing that “advantage.”

    why did you mislead us on on the Libyan situation? if you read your own article you would see that he went in voluntarily for questioning.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. David S

    Does anyone here have any insight on Consumer Drive Healthcare Plans (CDHP) and Healthcare Saving Accounts (HSA)?

    I am being given a choice on either continuing with PPO or choosing this new CDHP and would like to hear from someone with experience in the matter. Thanks.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David S @ 240 – I can’t comment on the employer based plans. I’ve heard some you lose your money contributed if not used, but apparently that’s no longer always the case.

    We have a HSA with a high deductible plan. How those works depends on your personality. If you like to have control and decide what to do based on what’s best for you, then you’ll like them. If you like to just do things without thinking, then you won’t like them.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. Kary L. Krismer

    The Seattle Times is covering the facilities charge issue I mentioned here:

    http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2011/03/01/health-care-open-thread-ii/comment-page-3/#comment-164266

    Here’s the article:

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019600338_facilityfees04m.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. Jamarcus

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 238:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. David Losh

    RE: Jamarcus @ 243

    Exactly.

    The whole point of Health Care Reform was to have a mechanism in place to address skyrocketing costs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David Losh @ 44RE: Jamarcus @ 43 – Take a course in basic economics and then you’ll understand why costs will skyrocket with more insurance. It’s because fewer and fewer people will care what anything costs, and make decisions irrespective of cost. It’s increased demande without any increase in supply. In California the insurance rates are going up much more than the 16% my rates are going up.

    In addition, Obamacare requires certain things be covered, such as annual physicals. Those are not going to be included in insurance coverage without an increase in rates. Contrary to popular belief, insurance companies don’t just print money. Every dime they pay comes from premiums, and if they have to pay more out, they have to take more in.

    Losh, there is no mechanism to keep costs down. There are only things in place to keep the government from paying as much. The rest of us will get screwed. Calling it the Affordable Healthcare Act was very 1984.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 245

    I said Health Care Reform which has nothing to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act, or ObamaCare.

    Health Care Reform is making a single payer system run by our government. You don’t like it? You can get your own private pay insurance.

    In the world of entitlements we already have government run health care that should be available to all citizens. By sharing a larger pool of participants we may even get closer to balancing the budget.

    Government run single payer health care is where Health Care Reform is headed.

    What got passed by Congress is a joke that won’t last. Next round, hopefully when the Democrats control the House, we will get Health Care Reform.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David Losh @ 247 – I would agree with most of that, except I don’t see how we’re going to get to single payer even though it probably is a good idea. Maybe the collapse of the entire healthcare system will get us there, but otherwise I don’t see it happening. There would be way too much opposition from way too many entities with way too much money.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. Kary L. Krismer

    Not the best source in the world, but here’s an article claiming insurance premiums are going to skyrocket further (and noting how much they have gone up already).

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/01/07/obamacare-guarantees-higher-health-insurance-premiums-3000-higher/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. Kary L. Krismer

    Supporters of Obamacare finally realize the obvious.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. Kary L. Krismer

    And the savings from Obamacare just keep rolling in! /sarc

    http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/20-health-insurance-hike-for-some-in-Bay-Area-4291878.php

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. pfft

    meanwhile back in the real world…

    Kentucky Will Expand Medicaid Under Obamacare, Cutting Its Uninsured Population By More Than Half
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/09/1989701/kentucky-expand-medicaid/

    kary do you think that is a bad idea?

    meanwhile back in the real world again Obamacare is already lowering healthcare costs.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/22/heres-why-health-care-costs-are-slowing/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. softwarengineer

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 253

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  55. One Eyed Man

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 253

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  56. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  57. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 253:

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

    no it isn’t.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  58. pfft

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  59. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 257:

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

    no it isn’t.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  60. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  61. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 259:

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

    no it isn’t.

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

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

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

    Pre-existing conditions and high healthcare costs are real.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  62. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 60:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  63. pfft

    another factcheck for kary,

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  64. Haybaler

    RE: pfft @ 263

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

    I watched a CNN report yesterday.

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  65. pfft

    By Haybaler @ 264:

    RE: pfft @ 263

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  66. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  67. Haybaler

    RE: pfft @ 265

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  68. Haybaler

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 266

    Hi Kary,

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  69. Kary L. Krismer

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  70. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  71. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 266:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  72. pfft

    By Haybaler @ 67:

    RE: pfft @ 265

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  73. pfft

    By Haybaler @ 68:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 266

    Hi Kary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  74. pfft

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  75. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 273:

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  76. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 71:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  77. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 275:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  78. Blurtman

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  79. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 277:

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  80. Kary L. Krismer

    By Blurtman @ 78:

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  81. pfft

    By Blurtman @ 278:

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

    single-payer wasn’t going to pass.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  82. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 79:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  83. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 80:

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

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

    can I have 3 studies please. thanks!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  84. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 282:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  85. Blake

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  86. Blake

    By Blurtman @ 78:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  87. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  88. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  89. Haybaler

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  90. Haybaler

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  91. Haybaler

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

    Washington Times

    Monday, October 28, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  92. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  93. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  94. Blurtman

    Next up, Angelo Mozilo to comment on Obamacare.

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  95. Kary L. Krismer

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  96. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 295:

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  97. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 287:

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  98. pfft

    By Haybaler @ 89:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  99. pfft

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

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  100. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 297:

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

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

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

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

    Well first, that’s not hiding Obamacare benefits. It’s hiding the fact that other companies might charge less. In my particular case my existing carrier does charge more than on the exchange, but the exchange is still more than my existing coverage. And there are no extra benefits that would make that extra cost worth while to me. In fact, the coverage is less because the deductible is much higher.

    I’ve yet to fully check out the network of doctors offered, but the lowest price plans have very limited networks. Not sure yet about the higher priced plans on the exchange.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

These comments are paged! This is page 3. Navigate the pages here:
1 2 3 4 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+