NOTE: If you are subscribed to Seattle Bubble’s RSS feed and are seeing these open threads in the feed, please switch to our official feed at http://feeds.feedburner.com/SeattleBubble Thanks!
Here is your open thread for the weekend beginning Friday June 29th, 2012. You may post random links and off-topic discussions here. Also, if you have an idea or a topic you’d like to see covered in an article, please make it known.
Be sure to also check out the forums, and get your word in the user-driven discussions there!
NOTICE: If you have comments to make about politics or economics that do not somehow directly relate to Seattle-area real estate, they may be posted in the Politics & Economics Open Thread. If you post such comments here, they will be moved there.
Kary’s Right per This MSM Source
Obamacare will reduce job hiring:
“…That means businesses will have a hard time budgeting for health care costs and are likely to delay hiring even further….”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/businesses-didnt-health-care-ruling-211733956.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Mike Kreidler, the WA state insurance commissioner, when asked by the local Fox news(?) bubbleheads how the Affordable Health Care plan was going to be paid for, said it is already paid for, as Congress has voted to fund it.
Well OK, then, the money is coming from somewhere else.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 1 – It’s inconceivable to me how a President could be facing the most severe economic crisis in most of our lifetimes, and decide that was the time to modify our healthcare system. Yes healthcare is screwed up, but it wasn’t the highest priority, and fixing it has an adverse effect on what should have been the highest priority.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 2:
I’m not a big fan of Mike Kreidler. His big push recently has been as stupid as some of Cantwell’s antics. Complaining about non-profit insurance company reserves. As someone insured by Blue Cross (or Shield???), I’m glad they have large reserves. Over the long run that has little impact on my premium, and to the extent it requires rates to be slightly higher, that means more new customers will choose a competitor. That would probably have a bigger beneficial impact on my rates than the effect of the larger reserves.
In addition though, the reserves are there to make sure the company can pay claims in the worst case scenario. More of them is a good thing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 3:
If you can’t afford to buy health insurance, or you have a pre-existing condition and can’t get health insurance, or you’ve used up the lifetime cap on benefits due to a serious medical condition, then yes, it is a highest priority. Changing the healthcare system is something that some citizens and elected officials have been clamoring for for decades. Something needed to be done. Sure, we have been facing the most severe economic crisis in our lifetimes. But Obama would have had an even harder time getting any legislation through congress that would have addressed that, unless it was to give tax breaks to the very wealthy.
I don’t particularly like Obamacare. It has a Frankenstein monster quality about it. If I were in charge and could just enact changes without congressional approval, I’d have either done something simpler( required everyone to buy at least a catastrophic policy) or done a single payer plan. But I’m glad Obama tried to do something. I’m just not doing cartwheels with the result.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Ira Sacharoff @ 5:
That’s putting the cart before the horse. Having people work so that they can pay for anything is the highest priority. Without jobs people can’t pay for anything. It doesn’t matter what health care or health insurance costs.
You’re thinking like the politicians in California during the energy crisis. They put a lot of the price increases onto businesses. That meant fewer jobs in the state. So a lot of people saved $20 a month on their electric bill, but lost $80,000 a year in income.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Ira Sacharoff @ 5:
If your wife and kids have been clamoring for food for the past 200 miles on a trip, and an approaching semi-truck is veering into your lane, are you going to worry about feeding them or saving their lives?
I’m not saying that something didn’t need to be done. What I’m saying is something didn’t need to be done to change health care in 2009-2011. As you say, people have wanted change for a long time. What would three or four more years have mattered? Most of it wasn’t even put into place right away.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Meth lab fun in Suquamish:
“Soon after John Bates and his wife moved into their first home, the euphoria of realizing the American Dream gave way to a nightmare of foul odors, unexplained illnesses and spiraling costs.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/27/meth-rehab-former-labs-nightmare-for-unwitting-homebuyers/
Moral of the story: talk to the neighbors before buying a house…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: ChrisM @ 8 –
Kary Could Help Here
Seems to me the real estate contract was “null and void” and likely illegal; if meth lab toxic chemicals were passed over and the house was listed for sale anyway.
Sounds like the buyer can not only walk away, but with considerable damages too from the seller….and possible police prosecution too of the seller.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 9 – It would depend what the seller knew.
One issue I think will pop up is on REOs is listing agents knowing things which are not disclosed by the agent. The agent cannot rely on the bank’s disclaimers stating that they are unfamiliar with the property, etc.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: ChrisM @ 8 – Home business potential?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Kary said “I’m not saying that something didn’t need to be done. What I’m saying is something didn’t need to be done to change health care in 2009-2011. ”
If Obama had waited until 2011 to try to get healthcare passed, it wouldn’t have happened. The GOP had taken control of the house, and most politicians do things for political reasons rather than ideological reasons. Getting healthcare passed was a big deal for a lot of Democrats for a long time. So just getting something passed was a huge political achievement.
I fault both parties for not getting anything done about the economy. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 12 – Hard to say how things would have turned out if Obamacare hadn’t been pushed. For example, the elections could have been very different.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 12 –
Not to Worry Ira
I believe Obama will be re-elected [I could be wrong, but its my gut feel].
Let’s put it this way, I don’t think America will embrace Romney’s religious leanings, the MSM doesn’t mention it….but its there, in the voters’ subconscious.
JFK got elected when Catholitism was a bit fringe too back in the 60s; so I may be wrong….but again, its my gut feel.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Until you have fought the two front battle – one for your life, and one against your insurance company, (if you are lucky enough to have one) you have not experienced how cruel our healthcare system is.
The term ‘medically necessary’ will be a term that makes you wince. I am not a fan of Obamacare either, but I am an even bigger opponent of not doing anything.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By softwarengineer @ 1:
what about all the lives saved? what about those that can spend at local businesses because they aren’t bankrupt or they don’t have to hold back their spending in fear of bankruptcy?
what about the 40,000 people who die every year due to lack of health insurance?
you don’t have all the facts right anyway. all you gave me was a “likely.” not good enough. try again.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 3:
The President passed a the Recovery act months before the healthcare bill. Obama last fall tried to pass another similar bill but Congress is blocking it
Do you pay any attention at all to politics?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 7:
nope. not when 40,000 people a year die due to lack of insurance.
Obamacare’ to the rescue
A woman who felt President Obama had let the middle class down has changed her mind.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/opinion/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206
if most of it doesn’t go into effect for a few years what the hell are you whining about?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
‘Romneycare’ Didn’t Kill Jobs, And Neither Will ‘Obamacare’: Study
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romneycare-didnt-kill-jobs-and-neither-will-obamacare-study.php?ref=fpa
Will the ACA Hurt Employers: Morning Edition Says It Depends on How They Feel — see Addendum
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/will-the-aca-hurt-employers-morning-edition-says-it-depends-on-how-they-feel
Small businesses are helped.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-obamas-affordable-care-act-will-cost-consumers-2012-6#ixzz1zDtP19AM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
People, people! Take the health care discussion over to the dedicated thread for it. We need to keep this channel open for important topics, such as bicycle/pedestrian overpasses and reusable shopping bags.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: wreckingbull @ 15 – I suspect you’d find that a government system would be just as bad, if not worse, at paying out for unusual treatments. The difference would be you wouldn’t have politicians and everyone else trying to get the money out of the government as if it were free money, the way they do with insurance companies.
Look at it this way. Right now politicians will create legislation to add acupuncture and mental health treatments as required coverage items for insurance without giving it a second thought. If it was a government program instead they’d have to give at least a half of a thought to how they’d pay for it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: wreckingbull @ 15 –
Between 1980, and 1986 I was a patient advocate for people with AIDS. It wasn’t called AIDS at the time, it was just a set of exotic diseases that killed gay men.
A guy named Josh Joshua recruited my girl friend, and when things got bad they called me. My personality is suited to going toe to toe with doctors. I’m extremely aggressive when need be, and I look good in a suit.
I’ll bet no one here knows what the term ‘medically necessary’ means.
After about four years of seeing the most bizarre excuses for refusing medical treatment, or out right experimentaion, I asked how our system of medicine could be so screwed up.
The answer was that by the time you actually see how bad the system is you are on your way to dying.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 22 – Reagan murdered people with AIDS. “Maybe the Lord brought down this plague” because “illicit violent love is against the Ten Commandments.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
nobody posted this?
Fortune: ATF Never Purposefully Let Guns Walk During Fast And Furious
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/fortune_fast_and_furious_gun_walking.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 14 –
It’s my gut feeling too, software engineer, but my gut is wrong a lot. I don’t think it’s Romney’s Mormonism that’s going to cost him the lection. It’s that people perceive him as being a panderer, somebody who will say anything to get elected. And the fact that he comes off as an out of touch rich guy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
oh boy.
NEW STUDY SHOWS HEALTH REFORM WILL CREATE UP TO 4 MILLION JOBS
http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2010/01/health_care_4_million.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 22 – Many people died David and many could have been saved. The FDA was the purposeful cog in the solutions. Their job was and still is to protect big business even if thousands die. Once you realize this then you realize how the rest of our system is likewise compromised. If we are willing to smoke the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, why should we stop there? Look around….how many people have died with more to come because of this economic crisis and how many have gone to prison for causing it?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Ira Sacharoff @ 25:
I would agree with that, but I’d say the same thing about President Obama, and point to his recent immigration executive order as an example of the pandering. Also his anti-business rhetoric is largely pandering to get votes (as is demonstrated by the lack of criminal prosecutions or even investigations which people here complain about all the time).
The difference, IMHO, is President Obama is more personable than Romney. I wouldn’t want to have a beer with either one of them, but if I had to pick one based on factors other than their position, I would pick President Obama.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Pegasus @ 27:
Our FDA has been focused and affected by this event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 16 –
“What about the 40,000 people who die every year due to lack of health insurance?”
Do you have a source for this?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 22 – You are spot on. Let’s put it this way. Based on what I know now, if I were given a sub-30% chance to live, with a cancer diagnosis, I would probably just ride it out until the end, rather than try to treat it (even WITH insurance). I’d rather die in peace knowing my wife would not be financially ruined by the system.
You can never predict for certain, though how you will react when this happens to you or your family, so take this with a grain a salt. The part that breaks your heart is seeing a family lose a loved one, after a long struggle, and then lose all financial security/stability they had due to everything that was not covered by insurance.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 30 – :-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
US Jobs 1999-2012
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4dg
Bush vs. Obama – draw your own conclusions.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 30 – Here’s the first article that popped up on Google: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917?irpc=932
Rate this comment:
0 
0
More recent article puts the number at 26,000 deaths related to lack of insurance.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85J15720120620?irpc=932
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: wreckingbull @ 31 –
I’m also a widower. My wife worked doing research in sexually transmitted diseases, that’s how we met. She was a part of the University of Washington system, and had health insurance through them. I had Blue Cross through my work. We were well insured.
She died a year after being diagnosed with luekemia, but she was 100% western medicine so wanted every treatment available. Mistakes were made along the way. Her diagnosis would have had here die after a year without treatment.
She died at 3AM, and at 10AM the hospital called to tell me they intended to lien our home. The phone call from the hospital was made in error, they didn’t see that we had dual insurance.
I was lucky that after six months of wading through medical bills my portion was $60K to pay, they had wanted closer to double that.
There was talk about us hitting our million dollar threshold, with warnings that some procedures were expansive, but at that time we were very well set financially, and when you are dying money has no meaning.
This experience, more than any others that I have had with the medical community, changed my perspective about life, and health care specifically.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: McGrath @ 34 –
I excerpted this from the article. I believe that the “Physicians for a National Health Program” probably had some existing biases as they went about collecting data for the study.
“The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or “single-payer” health insurance.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 37 –
Also, I believe the Left was using the insurance solution as a stepping stone to get to a single-payer solution. But basically what has happened is that the insurance industry has been assured that our health program will be insurance based for many years to come.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 30:
no doubt.
Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 38:
yep. single-payer is the ultimate goal.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 38 –
Single payer has always been the goal. Both the Right, and Left would like to have single payer, only the insurance industry wants private insurance.
This is much larger than a political issue. People die every day because we have one of the worst health care systems in the world. We have health care for the very rich, and only the very rich.
You have minimal coverage, that I can assure you. You don’t have the where with all to get sick.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I want to know what the government is going to do about the 55,000+ people who die every year in auto accidents. Shouldn’t they be provided safer cars and more driver education? We could have a choice- either buy better cars and training, or pay a fine. The government could administer it.
A lot of people are over-weight. Since this leads to health issues that affect insurance costs, shouldn’t the government provide them with better nutrition, a restricted diet, and counseling?
As a solution to the energy crisis I think we should all be required to buy electric cars. If you don’t, you should pay a fine. The electric cars should all be made by GM. You could buy one from another manufacturer, but it would include a surcharge, donated to GM.
In the end, the government should be given the authority to eliminate all suffering and inequalities of life to make things more fair. Suffering is hard- people should not be forced to endure it, even if it’s their own fault. We can legislate a perfect world, but we’ll need Obama and Biden at the helm for at least another four more years, probably more. Can we count on your vote?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 41 –
“People die every day”
That has got to stop. And I think we can get some bipartisan support to oppose death and legislate everlasting life. Now, only the poor die while the rich live on forever. It’s just not fair. And we should include pets. No one wants to live forever if they’re going to be lonely.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 43:
That’s because we don’t tax probate estates below something like $2,000,000. That means poor people have no incentive to not die.
The big campaign doners get all the best perks from government.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 42:
After thinking about the Obamacare decision further it really does seem to increase government power. There’s no limiting principle that would keep the government from taxing people for not losing weight, or tax them for not having an electric car built by GM.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 42 I understand – set up three straw men and beat them down. I don’t think automotive safety was a good one to pick though. That 55,000 would likely be 80,000 if not for all the government-mandated safety improvements of the last several decades. If you don’t believe me, all you need to do is take a drive in a country without such mandates. You will find a fatality rate up to four times our own.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 42 – Your logic is quite flawed, and exemplary of the effect that rabid ideology has on sound logic. You cite the 55,000 people who die in traffic accidents yearly. Don’t you think the government enacts policies already to create a safer driving environment, and to prevent fatalities? Here is a better driving deaths analogy – a device exists that can save lives in collision, but it costs $20,000 and is only avaiable to the wealthy. Why shouldn’t the government legislate that car manufacturers offer the device on every car thereby lowering auto collision related fatalities for all driving Americans? What could such a device be that would cause all Americans to further sacrifice their freedom and live in a totalitarian state? The airbag. And that’s the rest of the story.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 45 – Or tax people for smoking cigarettes.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 43 –
You have two back to back ridiculous commnents that add nothing to the discussion.
Health Care is best provided by a cohesive system that can be linked globally.
You mentioned in an earlier comment you may have some experience with MRSA which is a classic example of a break down in our health care system.
Because we have private insurance there was no mandate to address the issues of MRSA which went on for over a decade as far as I can tell without being addressed, it was a hospital secret. We’ve learned after another decade that if we gown up, wear gloves, and cut down on room to room contact, we can quarantine the spread of the infection, more, or less.
Where is the government mandate to address the root causes of the spread of MRSA? There isn’t any because there is a controversy, debate, wrangling about the expense, and of course new research to find a treatment.
What some people think, me included, is that hospitals should be required to clean the rooms between patients to a set of standards higher than we have. Policies should be set in place on a National level, but that would cut into the profits of all hospitals where the infection isn’t recognized as an issue at all.
I could go on for days with examples of how any doctor, or hospital can set policy, and procedures that maximize profits rather than give health care, because the system we have is set up to answer to the stock holders.
People do die every day. End of life should be a protected right, rather than a profit opportunity.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Be careful with those dirty reusable shopping bags!
http://mynorthwest.com/11/700800/You-could-be-holding-more-than-groceries-in-that-reusable-shopping-bag
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: wreckingbull @ 46 –
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 32,310 (not 55,000) people died last year in traffic accidents, the lowest number since 1949.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Natalia Orinko @ 51 –
That’s 32,000 too many. We need more laws and legislation. Only the government can fix this problem. People must be saved from themselves, especially those who would normally be eliminated from the gene pool through the horror of natural selection. (Liberals have a very passive/aggressive relationship with Darwin- they love the theory, but hate the results.) We need more stupidity to ensure continued diversity. Too many intelligent people would make those less likely to survive feel oppressed and unloved. And how unfair is that?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: wreckingbull @ 46 –
Those aren’t strawmen- those are real people suffering, in many cases, the consequences of their own poor choices. You will soon be assigned additional sensitivity training.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 48:
You’re not paying attention. They would tax people for not smoking cigarettes.
It’s like something Seinfeld would think up. Taxing people for doing nothing! ;-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 52 –
Let me see, seat belts, that I have to fasten or I get a ticket, plastic bumpers, air bags, drunk driver laws, speeding laws, safety requirements for the vehicle, tires, treads, two wheels versus four wheels, all to protect our insurance industry from more losses.
Government working for our insurance industry with our tax dollars.
I would rather do away with the insurance, and insurance requirements.
Health Care is exactly the same. We enact laws to protect the private insurance companies so we get less, and pay more.
You picked the wrong straw man.
You might as well say tort reform, it’s the other straw man in the room.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
as to the other two straw men; have you checked the government subsidies for the sugar industry, or oil?
Our tax dollars at work to prop up pricing on useless commodities, the rich get richer, and we pay for it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: David Losh @ 56 –
But everybody loves Obama care where we are forced to buy a product (insurance) from a private company or pay a fine to the government. And in exchange we get less care than we do now- unless you’re one of the takers sucking on the teat. Sweet deal.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
What happened to my free health care?
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 57:
I wish that I could locate your many posts on the disaster of Romney care and the horrors of the Massachusetts Gulag.
By takers on the teat, do you mean the people who use the system for free now? Will forcing them to buy insurance and put money into the system mean less resources for you? Oh wait, you mean the people who aren’t getting any healthcare at all. Interesting form of taker. It is tragic to think that when you eventually need the healthcare, you won’t have the benefit of arbitraging out the other “takers” to keep your costs down. It is indeed a moral hazard that perhaps 30% of us will no longer be able to game the system.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 57 – RE: whatsmyname @ 59 – I’ll come in somewhere in the vast space between your positions.
The problem with Obamacare (one of the problems) is that it forces others to pay for something someone else wants. That can be just fine, especially where the want is an actual need, but insurance isn’t the place you should just randomly start doing that. If you really want to spread the cost, do it across the entire taxpayer base, not just small groups of people paying insurance to a particular company for a particular type of insurance.
That however wouldn’t be popular, because that would require a tax, where until this week, Obamacare didn’t. People were treating it as some sort of magical gift of funds from the heavens.
Oh boy, a free physical once a year that I don’t have to pay for. /sarc
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 59:
You lost me there. I assume you’re talking mandate, but I’m not sure what side you’re taking on that.
On the topic, the thing is that the tax “penalty” isn’t large enough to prevent people from gaming the system. Those with pre-existing conditions will be able to come in, and that will drive up the premiums for the rest of us with the particular company that they sign on for. It might not be so bad if the tax “penalty” went to insurance companies to compensate them for the losses they will be forced to suffer by Obamacare, but the government has other plans for that money. So the “penalty” doesn’t even go toward rectifying the problem.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 58 –
“Wow, has anyone told this “economist” what portion of our other taxes fall on the backs of those making less than $120,000?
Plus, he’s talking about fines for not buying insurance. Apparently 25% of those fines will be paid by people making over $120,000. Do those takers belong on the teat?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 61 –
To clarify for your question: The cost benefit in the current (former?), system that affects those of us in the middle class the most is that a lot of people most likely to need care (pre-existing conditions for example) have been squeezed out of “our” system. It is like a cooperative where we systematically kick out anyone who needs it so we can keep our contributions down. The hope of such a system is that we pay less, and when it’s our turn to “need”, we’ll be able to get at the funds before we too get kicked out – or we belong to a limited class that can’t get kicked out. As Losh would say, it’s a scam.
I don’t really like the Obama care system either, but I have to react to the overreaction. Personally, like famous fellow travelers Truman and Nixon, (and possibly even you), I would prefer a single payer. The “wealthy” can always supplement with additional private insurance.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 57 –
Like car insurance.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 61 – RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 60 –
Exactly. The whole thing is a ruse.
Those who have insurance now- like me- and pay plenty for it- will soon pay more for less.. Those who don’t will still game the system, pay the “fine,” then get insurance when they need it- or just continue to walk into an emergency room (It’s the law- care must be provided) and get what they need. Not really a solution- just as bigger mess.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 63:
By and large you never were able to get kicked out just because you had a problem. Where you would have a problem was if you needed to change insurance. Say you were an employee and then became self employed. There were, however, instances where if you had a problem insurance companies would review your application to look for errors and then claim those errors were fraud. And they would be sort of like some posters here who see fraud in everything, and they would try to kick people out. The rest of this post will be in response to Losh’s post.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 42:
u mad bro?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By David Losh @ 64:
Huge difference between car insurance and health insurance.
Car insurance only covers you if at the time you had the accident you were insured. That’s what true insurance is. Health insurance has been turned into something else entirely, where even if you’re already “damaged” when you get the insurance, the company still has to pay. It would be like if some people could think they were “safe drivers” and go without insurance, and then when something happened call up an insurance company and have them pay out $200,000 in return for $150 a month insurance payments.
State law prior to Obamacare dealt in a limited way with pre-existing conditions on health insurance. For example, you could be covered on an individual policy for pre-existing if you had recently been covered on another policy. I think they may have even added something where you’d be covered after a period of time passed for pre-existing conditions. The point is though that is not free. Adding in those people causes rates to go up for the people already in the insurance system. So basically government is forcing those who already have insurance to pay for those who didn’t. And even if the people did have group insurance, it’s forcing those with individual policies to pay for those individuals.
As I said before, if government wants these people covered, it should cover them itself and spread the cost among all the taxpayers. That way the impact isn’t as dramatic on any one group of people.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 45:
Congress, the President and the Supreme Court?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 52:
oh yeah you are mad bro! sounds like someone needs a nice weekend hike.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 57:
link please. everyone will have better health insurance. tens of millions of people who don’t have health insurance will. 95% of people in the nation now will ALWAYS have healthcare. They will never go without.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 60:
oh god you literally know nothing about obamacare. People are required out of their own pocket to pay for health insurance. those that need help to pay will get help.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 65:
link please.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
update on the slow recovery.
Update: Recovery Measures
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/07/update-recovery-measures.html
also support for obamacare is up.
Poll: Support For ‘Obamacare’ Up After Supreme Court Ruling
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-support-for-obamacare-up-after-supreme-court?ref=fpblg
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 71 –
“Everyone will have better health insurance. tens of millions of people who don’t have health insurance will. 95% of people in the nation now will ALWAYS have healthcare. They will never go without.”
Maybe all the incredibly obese democrats who somehow find the money to never stop eating should cut down on their caloric intake rather than inject taxpayer-paid for insulin into their flabby arms.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 68 –
single payer, and it is the same, every car is damaged once it leaves the lot.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 75 –
Republicans are incredibly fat, and Democrats are bike riders. If you are going to use stereotypes to make a comment you should keep them straight.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
And here I thought the posts here were supposed to be about real estate and specifically not about politics and health care…………………..
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 65 –
You pay for insurance, but have much less coverage than you think.
Any government legislation will increase the care you get.
Of course the government would provide you with a much, much higher level of care, and concern for your well-being, and you would have a voice in the quality of care you get that you do not have now.
You pay a ton, a vast ton, of money to have the very least amount of care your insurance provider can get away with. You have absolutely no checks, or balances, and the insurance industry wants you to have less control all the time.
Tort reform is the battle cry of the insurance industry. You insurance company wants more freedom to provide you with the lowest quality of care without having to answer to any one.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Pegasus @ 78 –
You’re correct, sorry, I got carried away.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 75:
the most overweight states are usually are red states. some of the most walkable and healthiest cities are Democratic.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
everything you think you know about the popularity of obamacare is wrong.
Poll: Most Americans want to keep Obamacare in some form
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/01/poll-most-americans-want-to-keep-obamacare-in-some-form/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 66:
This is the thing with employer based insurance. Most people in our economy need to periodically change employers, often involuntarily. That is where the squeeze comes in, and the person goes out (of the system).
This is especially the case for the growing number of people who are switching to self employment or non-insuring employers – because they don’t have bulk purchasing power. When I was in that position, insurance ran dear, and it didn’t pay much for actual health care. The most significant value of the insurance was on one fluke incident where the insurance company maximums prevented their contractual providers from enforcing their scheduled rates. Thus a $2,000 procedure only ran $4,500 rather than the $12,000 on the invoice.
Some people only earn about the same $ as a decent policy premium. They will necessarily spend that money on food and even shelter, instead of insurance that won’t cover their health care. They are not envied by decent people. (I am not referring to you, of course)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 75:
Democrat Hannity: Gosh darn it, I just can’t seem to take the fork out of my mouth.
Democrat Limbaugh: When I feel the pangs, I just have a handfull of oxycontin.
Democrat Hannity: I don’t know if that will work. You still look like a pig to me.
Democrat Limbaugh: Hmm, what is it that Democrat Beck is using?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Fat democrats- throw another on the barbie!
http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/michael_moore1.jpg
http://www.nycdiet.com/nycdiet/images/rosie.jpg
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 75 – We live in a community which includes people with faults. It is part of being human. Learn to get along with your brothers and sisters. Or go to your room and stay there until you are ready to come out.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 83 – I would agree with most of that. One thing self-employed people can do though is get more rational insurance–at least if they have the resources to pay high ($2,000+) deductibles.
Unfortunately, despite that, health insurance is the one area where you can’t limit your coverage in other ways. In Washington state you have to get health care coverage for chiropractic care, acupuncture, mental health, etc. That drives rates up, and you have no choice but to be covered for things you would never use.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 81 – Source? For one who takes so much time to repeat that same idiotic phrase, you’re quite the hypocrite.
West Virginia comes to mind…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Blurtman @ 86 – Obesity is a major cause of medical costs, and in many cases (note my nice weasel-word usage) is a lifestyle choice, to use current terminology.
Normally I wouldn’t mind, but now that I, self-employed, am forced to subsidize other’s behavior, via paying into health insurance, I agree w/ the intent of Tatiana’s comment.
Forget about beams and motes, please remove me from the list of people forced to buy insurance!!! Also, can I opt out of Social Security? Gee, (to force this back to real estate), imagine the house I could buy (or rather the mortgage I could get) if I could devote insurance/SS payments to the mortgage instead!
Rate this comment:
0 
0