Saturday, November 2, 2013

What went wrong? Who's to blame? What's next?

This is a pretty good explanation of what went wrong and who's to blame.  The only obvious flaw is that this writer still thinks that private insurance isn't as good as Obama Care and I believe that will become the 'new lie' in about six months.  Wait for it.
 
By Rick Newman : We may now know what the most devastating statement of Barack Obama’s presidency is going to be: “If you like it, you can keep it.”
Obama has said that repeatedly about people who have health insurance as of January 1, 2014, when the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act go into effect. Yet insurers have been canceling hundreds of thousands of policies because their terms don’t comply with new requirements of the health-reform law. That makes Obama look like he was either fibbing or didn’t know the ramifications of his own law. And it comes on top of humiliating snafus at Healthcare.gov, the website that’s supposed to make it easy to sign up for Obamacare but has been plagued by recurring outages even a month after going live on October 1. (On Wednesday Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius apologized for the "miserably frustrating" tech snafus during a Capitol Hill hearing.)
The firestorm over cancellations represents much more than a PR problem for supporters of the ACA, because millions of Americans could find themselves without insurance as the federal program that was supposed to represent a better alternative malfunctions, leaving no practical alternatives. In retrospect, it seems obvious the experts implementing the ACA should have seen this coming. Yet the cancellation controversy reveals how Washington policymakers basically disregarded the very people — those who purchase individual insurance plans because they can’t get affordable coverage through an employer — who were bound to suffer the most disruption caused by the sweeping health-care reform law.
Obama has acknowledges "glitches" with the ACA rollout and said he takes "full responsibility" for fixing them. He continues to insist, however, that the new law will vastly improve access to care for millions who couldn't afford it before. And in a recent speech in Boston, he pointed out that one goal of the program was to secure better care for people paying sizable premiums for barely-there coverage. "One of the things health care reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured, but the underinsured," he said.
What he should have said
Still, Obama would be on much firmer ground if he had modified his now-notorious guarantee by saying, “If you have insurance through your employer and you like it, you can keep it.” Most big companies offer plans thorough enough to meet the requirements of the ACA, and there is, in fact, no reason for that type of coverage to change under the law. For years, employers have been charging their workers more for insurance, raising deductibles and making other changes to adapt to the skyrocketing cost of care. But most such changes have nothing to do with Obamacare. (Z: but, of course, in this case, costs have never been THIS skyrocketing or so SUDDEN)
It’s a different story in the market for individual policies, which are typically purchased by the self-employed, people who work for small companies that don’t offer insurance and others who don’t work. This is a small portion of the health-insurance market, which might explain why Obama and his advisers didn’t give it much thought at the outset. Only about 15 million Americans are insured through an individual policy, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, while 10 times as many — 150 million people — get health insurance through an employer. (Most other Americans either get coverage through a government program or go without.) White House spokesman Jay Carney has tried to downplay the cancellation flap by pointing out repeatedly that the individual market represents just 5% of Americans.
Those folks don’t have very good coverage, either. A 2012 study published in Health Affairs found that 51% of people with individual policies — nearly 8 million Americans — receive a level of coverage, dubbed “tin,” that’s lower than the cheapest plan offered under the Affordable Care Act, typically known as “bronze.” Overall, individual policies typically cover just 60% of medical expenses, leaving the patient to pay more than $4,100 in average medical costs each year. Group plans offered through employers typically cover 83% of expenses, resulting in much lower out-of-pocket costs of just $1,765 per year, on average.
New rules contained in the ACA require insurers to offer minimum coverage levels that are greater than what many individual plans offer. With a few exceptions, that means the ACA will basically prohibit the bare-bones coverage offered in tin plans and even some slightly more generous policies, beginning January 1. Even though insurance experts estimate that as many as 10 million people could lose coverage as a result, dealing with the blowback seems to have been an afterthought within the Obama administration.
Since individual plans are generally inferior to more-generous group plans, the architects of the Affordable Care Act may have assumed most people with such plans would be grateful for a chance to buy more-comprehensive coverage on one of the new exchanges. Some people with shoddy individual plans will even qualify for better coverage that costs less than they were paying, thanks to federal subsidies meant to help those with low incomes buy decent coverage.

An unanticipated uproar
But Obama and his advisers obviously failed to anticipate the uproar that would occur as people expecting no change to their insurance began to open notices from their carriers explaining their policies were being canceled. The abrupt nature of the cancellations surely hasn’t helped either, especially since Obama was insistent about coverage remaining intact for those who want it. On top of that, people losing individual coverage who want to find replacement coverage through an exchange must now navigate a broken-down website and a bumbling bureaucracy that makes the DMV look good.
Higher-income people losing individual coverage will also be forced to pay considerably more for insurance under the ACA, since they won’t qualify for a subsidy. They’ll probably get much better coverage than they had before (Z: that is THE biggest bunch of BS EVER EVER EVER), but the higher costs will probably lead some to opt for no coverage at all, even if it means paying a $95 fine (or 1% of their household income, whichever is higher) in 2014. (The fine, by the way, would be extracted from your tax refund and it would be possible to completely avoid it if you didn't get money back from the government for 2014 and beyond.)
If enough people choose to forgo coverage, it seems inevitable that, before long, we’ll hear about somebody with a medical emergency who ended up without insurance because it got canceled under the ACA, and who must now drain their savings or tap relatives to pay for catastrophic care that would be covered if not for the ACA. Obama might want to think ahead and start preparing an explanation for how that could have happened under a law meant to expand, not restrict, health-care coverage.
It might also be a good idea to stop making any promises at all about a law that keeps catching its own progenitors by surprise.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

THIS, I believe, is a rather unbiased, factual article (except the stupidity that people with a lot of money and private insurance will get better coverage than they have under Obama Care..RIDICULOUS!)

Got any stories you want to share about your insurance, or a friend's or family member's?   How are things going in the health insurance segment of YOUR life?
Z

66 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Not everyone needs or can afford expensive healthcare coverage.

I know an incredibly wealthy man who never carried health insurance. When he got brain cancer, he paid for all surgeries and all care out of his own pocket -- then turned around and gave the hospital another $3.5 million.

In my own case, I saw a lot of money by carrying catastrophic coverage instead of what most call "major medical." In a little over 2 years, I've saved more than enough to pay my recent bills for retinal surgery, a surgery that is quite expensive. A few numbers....I pay less than $300/month for my premium; if I had opted for a gold-plated policy, I'd be paying nearly $1000/month. So, in a year, I've saved some $8400!

Always On Watch said...

The elephant in the room....If everyone is required to carry expensive coverage, there will be less disposable income per household. What of our ailing economy with so much less disposable income?

Always On Watch said...

Um, "in my own case, I saw" should read "in my own case, I saved." Oh, to see better before I click publish!

Always On Watch said...

[Obama] continues to insist, however, that the new law will vastly improve access to care for millions who couldn't afford it before.

Not necessarily! Top Hospitals Opt Out. There is much more to insurance than the cost of the premiums. Available networks are critically important!

Z said...

AOW; Excellent comments here, thanks.
Many experts are talking about how the economy's going to suffer greatly because of this. VERY VERY limited disposable income for many will be a terrible shock to the retail world, that's for sure. The small businessman is going to be in big trouble as, indeed, they are already...and so many are being moved to part time just to have a JOB!

Z said...

By the way: Bloomberg's not been a great mayor, and he left his supposedly conservative past behind when he got into power, but I have to laugh at the thought of DeBlasio taking over...big time lib and glad-hander.
This might be what liberal New Yorkers need to really see the light; a truly liberal mayor who will bring poor New York back to its knees financially, and safety-wise.
wait for it. I don't welcome New Yorkers' pain, but at least it'll be educational to watch.

Duckys here said...

(Z: but, of course, in this case, costs have never been THIS skyrocketing or so SUDDEN)

----------
Evidence?

Thersites said...

this writer still thinks that private insurance isn't as good as Obama Car

Obamacare IS private insurance intended to subsidize the bad moral habits of sluts and homosexuals (making all their prescribed treatments "free" or "low cost"). Got AIDS? Obamacare is for YOU!

Thersites said...

SNAP - Subsidizing drug habits and alchoholism for over 100 years.

The federal government draws no distinctions between the deserving and undeserving poor. And THAT is why Republicans don't "support" it.

Duckys here said...

AOW, if you had the "insurance" that is being dropped because it does not meet minimum standards you would have been on the hook for your retinal procedure and Mr. AOW would be in a similar situation.

The number f people who are being cancelled is small and they represent a very large percentage of the medical bankruptcies in America.
The coverage is so poor that they recover virtually nothing when they need are and pay out of pocket.

The recent reduction in food stamps is expected to reduce our meager growth by a tenth of a percent. Walmart is already predicting a lower bottom line.
Do you care about that loss of growth? f course not.

Duckys here said...

Another point of view

Ed Bonderenka said...

Duck, as I said before, I know people who have had their rates double, their deductable double and more.
And I've heard more tell of it on a national talk show I listen to, also finding the plan they shopped for is gone.
This talking point about "tin" plans is a way to denigrate these complaints from people who are suffering.
Obamacare: So good it must be mandatory.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Shaw, take your bigoted spiel somewhere else please.
Congress voting to save tax dollars (my money) by limiting it to the truly needy and not encouraging people (black and white) to stay home is not "starving the poor".
Jesus said, "the poor, you will have always". There will always be those who are satisfied with being poor. I don't want to pay for their cigarettes and MD2020.
Those who are truly poor, need and will get assistance.
How bigoted to refer to us as bible toting, gun clinging, hypocrites.
Oh, you were quoting your messiah.

Thersites said...

This country is full of mean-spirited, greedy, gun-toting wackos.

This country is full of fascist progressive "my-way-or-the-highway" a-hole poverty enablers.

Impertinent said...

@ED:

" I know people who have had their rates double, their deductable double and more..."

Damn straight Ed...last year we had a 5K threshold to meet. We met it in October! So we got 2 months out of a 2K per month policy from Aetna. This year they upped it to 10K!! And the monthly premium to 3K+!

It's the same sheet that happened when he was going to make the credit industry "fairer". Before the law rolled out ( all to protect the losers who don't pay their CC balances ) I had interest rates of about 8% on an average. My best card and line of credit went to 17% damn near overnight! These people aren't stupid...they know damn well they're going to have to gouge the good to subsidize the losers. Same for the housing industry with all the "no strings, no down payment" loans. Who's paying for Dodd's and BARNEYS criminality now?

Ed Bonderenka said...

Imp, I read Ducks link.
My take is that if you have an LA Times columnist working for you, you can find taxpayer dollars to subsidize your change in plans.
But you'll have gender crisis counseling, abortion coverage, and many other benefits you didn't have before.
Another example of government intrusion distorting the marketplace, then blaming the market place.

Z said...

Ducky, thanks...it shows you're not paying attention.
And, of course, the media's MADLY looking for evidence these people don't know what they're talking about, when we'd all be better served if they looked at both sides of their messiah's transgressions, wouldn't we. Or Bengazhi, or Fast & Furious, of Solyndra? or..or...
I'm surprised you're so closed minded about that.

No, Ducky, because leftwing media people only go after the Republicans at any meaningful clip doesn't help.

and "evidence"? you're REALLY not hearing the huge increases so suddenly being sent out?

What makes me really laugh is Obama fans saying "that always happens, this has nothing to do with Obama Care"

ODD! I have NEVER EVER had a friend suddenly told she's either losing her health ins. or she's going to pay double. (EVER).


Ed and Imp and Thersites: Ducky is a perfect example of those who just won't see.

Don't forget, Massachusetts is touted as so spectacular..........nobody talks about
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/22/romney_health_plan_a_bust_for_massachusetts_111436.html

And more articles like that.

What the lefties don't understand is WE DO NOT WANT GOV"T TELLING US WHAT InSURANCE WE CAN BUY AND WHAT IT'LL COVER AND WHAT WE SHOULD PAY.

Oh, and the new meme out of the WH now is "But those poor saps who think they liked their insurance can't really because it's "substandard"...

Your freedom days are OVER, friends..just like the left likes it.

Ed, that commenter's gone; and always will be as soon as I or Mustang see them, so you needn't comment to them. It bothers me that people are wondering who you directed your excellent comment to. sorry, but I don't put up with the commenter. Thanks!

Ed Bonderenka said...

Z: No, than YOU.
I noticed yesterday that a comment and my response to it were gone. That's fine.
Your freedom days are OVER, friends..just like the left likes it.
Obamacare: So good it must be mandatory.

Ed Bonderenka said...

I bought a bluetooth keyboard for my tablet. The k doesn't wor so wll and th e doesn't ithr.
I also don,t gt autofill or autocorrct with it.
As you can see.
But I m3ant Thank you, not than you.

Z said...

Oh, Ed, I had thought I'd offended you when I saw "No, THAN YOU!" I'm so relieved to read your second comment :-)
Sorry about your keyboard!

Mustang, thanks for deleting yesterday's...I just want Ed to know HOW welcome his comments always are here, ALWAYS, and wanted to make sure he knew what's going on.

Sometimes,I like to keep a response if only a tiny part addresses the offender and the rest is great, as it was today!
Then I just mention what happened.

Mustang, I don't know what I'd do without you.

JonBerg said...

For those of you who may think that the "single payer" (Government) system is the answer please, carefully, read the information below. I sure don't want to be around when it's time to pay for what already exists let alone what it would be by adding single payer debt. Private Insurance must hold "reserves" to pay their liabilities our Government, obviously, does not. Instead of investing in assets to pay liabilities, as private carriers do, Uncle Sam pays people not to work! Registrants should know about things like this or NOT be allowed to VOTE! Yes, I mean by test. The "PARTY" was over long ago.

United States National Debt $17,393,260,355,649.00
United States National Debt Per Person $54,808.10
United States National Debt Per Household $141,952.98
Total US Unfunded Liabilities $125,775,225,572,632.94
Social Security Unfunded Liability $15,697,635,485,999.93
Medicare Unfunded Liability $80,539,794,646,862.94
Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability $20,226,740,741,501.12
National Healthcare Unfunded Liability $9,311,054,698,268.93
Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person $396,331.76
Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household $1,026,499.25
United States Population 317,348,342

What are "unfunded liabilities"? Suppose you have no assets (no house, savings etc.), and you promise to pay me $1000 per month for a year. Your "unfunded liability" is $12,000 (12 months times $1000). The Federal Government has made similar promises for Medicare, Social Security, Medicare Part D (the Prescription Drug Plan) while not setting aside any money for these programs. Eventually the bill will come due and the government will have to pay those promises by law - or change the law.

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
if you had the "insurance" that is being dropped because it does not meet minimum standards you would have been on the hook for your retinal procedure

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

It is my understanding that my policy (premium less than $300/month because I have no pre-existing conditions) doesn't meet the ObamaCare minimum standards because it doesn't have prescription coverage. I don't need prescription coverage; the Walgreen's Club performs well with its wonderful discounts, and membership costs only $35/year.

My deductible is $2500, then 70-30 until a maximum out of pocket of $5000.

As part of a huge network covered by my insurance, thus far the bills for my retinal surgery appear to be less than $5000.

A comparable ObamaCare plan (Bronze has the closest premium, albeit substantially higher than what I pay now) entails a $6500 deductible, I think.

Mustang said...

The thing about the ACA is that people who do not even understand how a light switch works devised it. Now I will admit that there were people before without health insurance; not because they couldn’t afford it, but rather because they opted not to have it. It was a personal decision not to accept the health insurance or dental care packages offered by their employers. For the others without health care—the unemployed, perhaps, they should have access to a health package that is consistent with their unemployment insurance. A state, rather than federal program.

But no, we didn’t do that. We now impose an insurance cost on 62-year-old citizens for such things as maternity care. It is simply absurd.

Meanwhile, the cost of cancer treatment is off the page, and I don’t understand why we don’t merge these two ideas. On the one hand, a free market system designed to lower costs through competition. On the other hand, impose a federal ceiling on the costs for some things, such as cancer, so as not to drive widows into the poor house after their husbands die. Why does any cancer treatment cost $7,000.00 a week? The word for this is usurious, particularly when that same medication is available to the citizens of other countries for about one-third that cost.

So, where am I wrong?

Rottweiler said...

I can clearly remember all those Dumbocrat snarky, drama queens all of you bitching in the streets during the Bush Administration when there was anything at all you suckers didn't like.
And now that Obunner is in office, you actually and wrongfully accuse everyone else of HIS flaws, and failures.

JonBerg said...

Mustang,

As a former Senior Program Manager, for a very large [state] mandated casualty insurance program, I completely agree with your concept. Further, I'll bet that you could do it with a lot less legalize and gobbledegook than I'm sure is found in the, reported, >20,000 pages of the ACA.

Rottweiler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ed Bonderenka said...

Is this an adjunct blog of another blog? Who and what is Rottwlr referring to? And Why?

Baysider said...

Duckys said "the number of people being cancelled is small." There are 19,000,000 people on individual policies. I am one of them. It's estimated that 16,000,000 will have their insurance policy cancelled directly because of the Obama law. I am one of them. Not an estimate, but a cold, hard statistic.

Here's 'evidence' that costs have not be this skyrocketing or so sudden until this abortion of a law passed. My plan had decent coverage with access to doctors I'm working with and the hospital of my choice. I was offered an 'option' to pay 65% more ($210 more per month), with a 75% HIGHER deductible. But not the hospital of my choice. I lose. Big time. And Obama knew it the day he lied about it to the camera.

Incidentally, the LA Times article Ducky linked to states "the deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy" on an existing 'non-conforming' plan they examined. Well, the replacement plan offered to me is much worse than the 'non-conforming' plan outlined in this article. Is the Times data suspect? Reporting biased, possibly?

Dave Miller said...

Mustang and Jon, how would you justify the government involving itself in the private business of an insurance company?

Don't they have a right, as private industry, to charge whatever they want, or what the market will bear?

Why should we choose to regulate that part of American business and not some others?

Mind you, I could probably agree with your approach, I just can't reconcile it with how I understand conservatives to think about government and business...

JonBerg said...

Dave,

The premise here is that the government has already involved itself by mandating such coverage. As far as I'm concerned the present health care system should have been left alone with, perhaps, some modifications. However, as far as I know, most all insurance is regulated, to some extent, by state Insurance Commissioners anyway.

Mustang said...

Well Dave, most people understand that there is a role for government. And to suggest otherwise would appear to deny the fact that government imposes itself in private enterprise all the time. If this were not true, then there would be no safety standards in modern automobiles, private corporations would pay not taxes, and medical facilities would be able to reuse hypodermic needles. Moreover, the government does impose price restrictions, as in the case of rent ceilings.

What I do not understand, quite frankly, is why the US government signed on to the WHO treaty, which in effect charges the American consumer more for pharmaceuticals than the prices imposed on the citizens of other nations. Currently, US citizens living in South Texas routinely drive across the border to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs at about one-third (or less) of the price they would pay on the US side of the border. According to one Pharmacology Actuarial group, the US is the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that does not impose any price regulation on the drug industry.

Realizing that pharmacological research is expensive, I’m not asking for a policy that would send these companies out of business; I’m simply saying that the US consumer is paying the cost of drugs dispensed to the citizens of other countries. It isn’t right. I think these drug companies should make a profit, but not a gargantuan profit at the expense of widows or other survivors.

I also object to the fact that former presidents routinely use (at no expense) corporate aircraft of American drug manufacturers, while the 70-year old man has to pay out the nose for his prescription medications. Personally, I’m looking for sanity in government. I haven’t seen much of this for a very long time.

Our WorldAs We See It said...


You ask, “ Who's to blame”? The answer is obvious. If you believe Republicans are to blame because you've listened to the media. You are a brainwashed tool.
The truth is the Dems are to blame and BIG TIME big. We were told “If you like your health plan you can keep it”. And then some guy loses his health insurance and is told he can only get insurance by going to a website that doesn’t work, to sign up for insurance that wont cover him, to avoid a penalty he shouldn't have to pay anyway.
Yeah, people are going to be pissed. And the Dems are to Blame!
“If You like Your Health Plan You Can Keep It”. Yeah Right!

Anonymous said...

O Jugears

3/5's of a "president"

5/5's pure liar

Z said...

Boy, I learn a lot around here :0)

Thanks for your discussions.

Dave and Mustang and Jon...particularly...I thank you for the reasoned, calm and informative exchange of opinions. SO much.

Ed Bonderenka said...

The day we told hospital they can't refuse treatment, the tracks were laid to get us where we are today.
Next was: uninsured costs are to high, so raise prices.
High prices raised insurance costs.
Must fix insurance costs, but still not deny treatment to unisured, so as soon as treatment is needed, allow them insurance.
As much sense as taking bets on yesterdays horse race.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Too, not to. Phone.

Kid said...

There will be enough propaganda around obammycare to choke a planet.
My retired lunch buddies have maternity care on their insurance now. They're 65, and one is male.

There will be enough of this nonsense to choke a planet also.

Kid said...

The problems with health care were mainly costs and some malpractice.

Simple to fix.
Costs:
o - profiteering. (competition would do wonders for that)
o - lack of competition - insurers unable to cross state lines. Why. In this case, it is gov regulation that causes the problem.
o - trial lawyers, Why has No one brought up the problem of trial lawyers and lottery ticket lawsuits especially.

Brielfy -hospital in Texas paying 100 mm a year defending itself from frivilous lawsuits, not payouts, defense costs. Texas passed a law against frivilous law suits, new cost to hospital 2 mm.
98% reduction in this one element alone. Expand that across the country.
When a drug company has to pay a billion or more in a legal Award, all drug companies have to start putting money away in case it happens to them. That cost must be paid by people who buy drugs.

Malpractice insurance goes up with the bigger medical awards. And why can an incompetent doctor simply go to another state and kill someone else?
These problems are lack of regulation. Most politicians are lawyers, and lawyers contribute heavily to politicians especially democrat. I think we have an answer.
This could have all been fixed easily.

Yes,w e pay for uninsured because when they do get sick they go to ER, who have to treat them We were already paying this bill, why do we have to pay what will end up being 10 times as much?
Create a uninsured medical program by state, and let the people go to a doctor instead of ER.
We all pay a portion on car insurance for uninsured motorist.

We have a responsibility to take care of health related issues for all Americans, not just those who ar working on on a group plan, or pre-existing condition people.

And guess what they're going to do now. Wait til the need something, take out the insurance, cancel it afterward and pay the cheaper fine. Or not at all if they don't have a tax refund that can be harvested.
Going to be a lot more expensive to handle it that way.

Kid said...

Ok Duck Here Ya Go (what you asked for) Here's is what will happen.

Regulations and red tape will bring doctors office’s to their knees. They’ll have to hire more people, as will every other entity, and these people will just be shuffling paper, not providing a health care service.

Many good doctors will leave based on the cut to medicare payments. Most doctor’s patients are those in need of health care – seniors are on medicare.
They’ve told me this. Early retirement, or plan B. Maybe they’ll go to Canada where people will appreciate them.

Affirmative action for health ‘professionals’ Why? If they were qualified, they’d already be working in the industry. They will further degrade the competence of service to you – you sick son of a real American.

Death panels – a group of A*s will preside over deciding whether you, now a liability to the state, will get that expensive treatment. Good luck. Not to mention the long delays.

Politicians will spend the money on other things, like they and their friends and campaign contributors and that leaves less for you.

The taxes will kill the economy because rich people don’t pay taxes for the most part. Tax is just a raw material cost component that is used to calculate a final price to you, you middle class, tax paying maniac.

Health insurance costs have already gone up 35% or more and most of obamacare isn’t even implemented yet.

Depending on where you live, as in heavily populated metro versus country bumpkin land, you’ll wait forever to see some incompetent doctor, or get a decent wait time, respectively.

You’ll be paying a LOT more and getting a LOT less. Libtards seem to like that, but the rest of us are going to be upset enough to need the health care we aren’t getting.

More divisive – the beautiful people will hate everyone they perceive as unhealthy


In a move that could significantly expand insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments, a federal health advisory panel on Monday recommended that all obese adults receive intensive counseling in an effort to rein in a growing health crisis in America. Get your annoying in your face counselor here Refrigerator inspections? Mandatory Exercise?

If you use BMI, pretty much everyone in the US is obese.

Kid said...

Finally, I talk to executive types in Canadia. They tell me they have their own health insurance - Canada threw up their hands finally and let the private insures setup shop again.

Without it they say, you're about guaranteed a wait of 12 hours in the office to see a doctor on the government plan. Businesses have been operating in Canada for a long time that provided the sole purpose of negotiating and arranging for health care in America for Canadians with time sensitive issues.

Bottom line, everyone pays out the wazoo in taxes in Canada for the non-existent government health care and the lucky ones got to pay a private insurer to actually get health care. And Canada I think actually cares about their citizens. They were paying people to have kids up there, and no not for the same reason as here.

It'll be worse here.

Duckys here said...

@kid ---
Regulations and red tape will bring doctors office’s to their knees

-------
More hysterics. How about some data.

Duckys here said...

@kid ---
Health insurance costs have already gone up 35% or more and most of obamacare isn’t even implemented yet.
---
Prove it.

Anyway, the main reason the left is unhappy with the bill is the absence of any cost restraint on the for profit insurance industry and their antitrust exemption.
What you are going to see now is called milking the marks.

Kid said...

Duck, last year my insurance went up 35%,company group plan, same year they began offering an HSA. Our HR does a great job of negotiating with the insurers, and everyone I talked to, some in other parts of the country said the same.

As far as your other comment and your followup comments, hey, it's a few country, you are entitled to your opinion. These are my predictions, we'll see how they fare as time goes on.

Given all government health care around the world Sucks, I think I've got a good shot at being pretty close.

Kid said...

Duck "cost restraint on the for profit insurance industry and their antitrust exemption.
What you are going to see now is called milking the marks."

This is Rich !
How about Tax restraint on the government that you have NO CONTROL of. ! Lol !

Kid said...

And remember Duck, oBAMa told you that you might have to 'get by' on pain pills. Those are the kind of promises he keeps.

Kid said...

Here ya go Duck. Not hard to find at all Didn't even have to look in fact.

Kid said...

Read at least the whole first page of that Duck. Yes, that won't be representative of everyone, but it will be for many. Especially those who had individual policies.

Like Small business owners - those who hire people. etc. It just never stops. It won't stop until the country comes to a screeching halt.

Duckys here said...

@kid --- Duck, last year my insurance went up 35%,company group plan, same year they began offering an HSA.

------
And that has exactly what to do with the ACA?
Let me know when you wise up and decide on single payer.

Kid said...

Duck, the private insurance companies were getting a leg up, just like businesses were getting a leg up by NOT Hiring people, until they knew what their liabilities were going to be for obammycare.

As far as the health insurance, the representative that came and talked to our employees TOLD US this was the reason for the increase. That's the problem with liberals, don't know Jack.

When YOU finally wise up, you'll blame it on anything and everything beside the democrats. And a bunch of people on the blogs will try to educate you again. Me? I'm just going to laugh. If I had a nickel..

Kid said...

Duck, why don't you address the content of what I've written instead of coming back and yelling like a child that I should wise up and accept single payer.

Do you not have any intelligent feedback to give us to address legitimate points regards the subject at hand? Why not just say so instead of being incompetently aggressive ? It doesn't speak well of you. Just sayin.

Kid said...

And another question, WHY do people such as yourself accept the government Vermin being in so much control of something so personal to an individual as health care ?

See, that' a mental defect right there. Point numba 3,789 in why liberalism IS a mental disease.

I don't know how old you are, maybe it's not too late to get help ?

JonBerg said...

"Let me know when you wise up and decide on single payer."


Please see my previous comment. You must be a complete idiot if reality escapes you that much! If you add our >$17,000,000,000,000 debt to our [unfunded] liabilities it amounts to $143,000,000,000,000. The United Nations, in 2008, evaluated our national wealth @ $118,000,000,000,000. So you would try to make it worse? When I first joined this blog I saw reference to your lack of any common sense; it appears to be quite worse. While almost no one listens to you (why would they), why do you continue to espouse your nonsense? OK you're a provocateur because nothing else fits. I'm almost inclined to think that you are really a "shill" for an extreme 'right wing' source to make Liberals look like complete idiots; which , of course, they do anyway!

Always On Watch said...

Warren has been through health-insurance hell. Will the ACA do anything to benefit him the last few years before he qualifies for Medicare?

His employer quit offering health insurance on January 1. Warren finally found a policy in March at rape-rates and with terrible benefits -- never mind that he has carried health insurance for over 30 years. A few months later, he received notification that the insurance company -- a branch of BlueCross, I think -- will no longer operate in his state.

I need to give Warren a call to see what he has learned about his situation.

I do know many others without health insurance. Some of these people opted out of their employers offered insurance. "I don't want to have a smaller paycheck. Uncle Sam will pay for me if I get sick." When they get sick, sometimes terminally so, or need medical treatment of any time (childbirth), the bills are paid by the government or not at all. I highly doubt that any of these people will sign up for anything. Instead, they'll pay the fine -- if Uncle Sam can find them, that is.

Always On Watch said...

Confirmed: Obama Aides Debated the “You Can Keep Your Insurance” Line Before Deciding to Lie to American Public

Liberalmann said...

• Think people. Stop the silly screeching. This was out there for a few years. I don’t know why you’re finding it a big surprise now except that Fox News is telling you to get enraged. You think they’re really looking out for average Americans?


• Deductible too high
• Co-pays too high
• Out-of-pocket maximum too high
• Plan has yearly or lifetime benefit limits
• Co-insurance isn’t high enough
• Plan has coverage exclusions that are no longer permitted (such as for mental health care)
• Plan doesn’t include prescription medicines, charges too much for them, or has prescription coverage limits (John knows this last one very well)
• Plan doesn’t include preventive and well-care doctor visits for no charge

Mustang said...

The supposition pushed forward by Obama (and the left) is ludicrous. While no one questions the notion that “preventive care” encourages people to see their doctor on a regular basis, people who are not inclined to do that will not do it even if the plan does pay for preventive exams. Let’s face it—our regular diet should include vegetables because they provide much needed vitamins to bolster our health. Some people don’t like eating vegetables—beyond French fries. Is it really the role of government to force Americans into eating celery sticks? Seriously? Moreover, this notion that the American consumer’s health insurance plan must include such things as birth control or remedies for erectile dysfunction is more than ludicrous —it is senseless. Or that a 62-year-old man should have to pay for maternity care. I say that anyone who buys in to such nonsense deserves the result, which is unfolding now before our very eyes.

Always On Watch said...

How to define "substandard"?

I don't need prescription coverage. The Walgreen's Pharmacy Club is a better deal that prescription coverage is; prescription coverage can double the premium. Not worth it!

My out-of-pocket maximum is less than the lowest priced policies on the ObamaCare web site. The same is true for my annual deductible.

And here is something else: Are Only “Substandard” Plans Being Canceled?

Liberalmann said...

Sebilius is a babe! I look at her and know that WHEN we have more like her ruling, we will put all the RePUGnicons in Owschwitz.

THAT is the greatest afrodisiac EVER!

Average American said...

This whole damned obummercare debacle is based on a huge pile of crapola! OK, so maybe 47 million Americans had no health insurance. SO FRIGGING WHAT? They still had all the health CARE they needed. This was just a way to make the leeches and illegal aliens feel better about themselves. With obummercare, they don't have to go to the emergency room or clinic and admit they are on the gubbermint teat and therefor have a right to free healthcare. Now they can show that they have insurance. No need to tell anyone that they don't pay a dime for it.

About all that was needed was to take care of "preexisting conditions" and a few other things that could have been done with some minor tweaking, but, NOOOOOOOO, obummer just had to play God. We need to get rid of that asshole! He needs to be either impeached or charged with TREASON! There is a solid case for either!

The Voice of Reason said...

How much lies and deception must we take? Benghazi, Healthcare, Children of illegal getting rights, illegal taking our jibs and getting handouts, and the more yjru get, the more they want. . And trust me, Soros has played a HUGE part in all of this.
If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did and continues to do on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along.
Lies, deceit, cover ups, propaganda machine, and the masses on the left believe him. It is utterly insane and what a way to politic. He is definitely the Master of Lies.
His excuse that he was out of the loop and didn’t know is so outrageous that it’s becoming a joke. Thanks for re-electing him, you Progressive Libocrap FOOLS!

Speramus Meliora; Resurget Cineribus said...

Obama is a congenital liar, very much like the Clintons. it's everyone else fault except the pres and the dem leadership that passed this "gotta pass it to see what's in it" law... gimme a break

Hildergarde Hammhocker said...

I HATE, truly HATE these miserable disgusting lying charlatan rotten rotting liberal. progressive rats with all my heart and soul

Kid said...

Libgurl, you ignorant slut......

I knew how evil this was when I read it before it was passed (more than the dems did). Why did Not a single republican vote for it? Not saying repubs are 'good'.

All of my acquaintances knew how evil it was too. We also knew what an incompetent empty suit imbecile oBAMa is after hearing him talk a year and a half before the 08 election.

Just because you don't notice things until they whack you upside the head does not mean that true of everyone. Conservatives have been on this since this skidmark arrived. It's being talked about now, because it's being implemented as INCOMPETENTLY as possible.

Now go.....you know

shawkeewee said...

Kid said...

Libgurl, you ignorant slut....


Are You Talking To Me?

Kid said...

shawkewee, If you're liberalmann, then heck yea !

Something tells me you're the vermin shaw though.

Average American said...

from libbtardmann:
"Sebilius is a babe! I look at her and know that WHEN we have more like her ruling, we will put all the RePUGnicons in Owschwitz.

THAT is the greatest afrodisiac EVER!"

Kinda makes you want
to go F###yourself huh---good idea asswipe!!

Sorry Z---delete if necessary.