patrick.net

Blurtman says

Someone must pay for someone else. The extended inclusion of kids until age 26, the inclusion of folks with pre-existing conditions, and the inclusion of uninsured folks who have been without healthcare for a while means someone must pay.

This is just unfounded speculation. Do you have any actual data showing that premiums are rising faster than they did before ACA? Of course you don't, because they AREN'T.

Blurtman says

According to the head of Aetna, if you believe him, the uninsured jack up the cost of employer provided healthcare insurance by 12%. That is how we are paying for the uninsured now.

Why do you believe the CEO of Aetna? Hardly an unbiased source.

errc says

Seriously, this is bizarro world. You're promulgating a lie in order to justify stealing from the healthy. Those of us that make sure to keep ourselves healthy, and avoid the hospital and doctor, altogether. Stop

Yeah, funny thing about that. You're healthy until you get sick. We could have a system where people who are healthy AT THE MOMENT don't have to pay anything, but then when they get an illness - be realistic - they aren't going to just let themselves die. Then they will immediately begin screaming for the healthcare that they feel they are all of a sudden entitled to. Nope, it's not gonna work that way. Everybody needs to be in the system. Yeah, if you don't have to go to the doctor right now, you're subsidizing someone else. But when you DO have to go to the doctor, someone else is subsidizing YOU.

All you clowns who think you are immortal can kiss my ass. You're not.

Homeboy says

Why do you believe the CEO of Aetna?

That's a good question - like questioning why people quote the Kaiser family empire.

EBGuy says

Kaiser is the one to beat, but they currently are not going after new customers as they need to build out infrastructure.

You have got to be kidding. They are advertising constantly on TV to lure customers to replace the people who leave in frustration or die. Turn on your TV sometime, and see for yourself. And, notice all those Kaiser "studies" that get promoted by publicists and picked up by commercial "news" all the time.

curious2 says

You have got to be kidding. They are advertising constantly on TV to lure customers to replace the people who leave in frustration or die. Turn on your TV sometime, and see for yourself. And, notice all those Kaiser "studies" that get promoted by publicists and picked up by commercial "news" all the time.

Once again, I saw your post on preview. This time I wanted to answer, so I took you off ignore for one post. The Kaiser Family Foundation (the group that does the studies) is no longer affiliated with Kaiser Permanente (the healthcare provider). The KFF is a non-partisan research firm. People quote them because they have the most accurate statistics on health insurance. That has nothing to do with any ads run by Kaiser Permanente.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Kaiser Permanente. Although the coverage and the facilities were fine, in my experience they had a high doctor attrition rate. Every time I found a doctor I liked, he or she would quit and I'd have to find a new one. Also, their appointment system was insane. If you wanted to see a doctor within 6 months, you had to call at 7:00 am and wait on hold for a long time to get a so-called "urgent care" appointment. If they didn't have any left, you had to keep trying each day at 7:00 am. Good luck ever getting the same doctor twice. Pretty stupid in my opinion. Some people like them just fine, though.

Homeboy says

Their insurance cost $333 a month for four people?

Um, I call bullshit.

Do you really think the rest of the nation pays the same price for health care and insurance that we morons here in California do? Because the rest of the nation does not pay what we pay here in California, might explain why such a large percentage of them are against the ACA. Their insurance, while still high, is nowhere near as insane as it is here.

It's not hard to figure out why, for instance in Modesto, where they collect on less than 10% of the bills they issue(in large part due to illegal aliens), a heart attack without complications costs $92,000, while the same procedure in Danville, Arkansas(who doesn't have the same demographic problem) costs $3300

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/08/news/economy/hospital-bills/index.html

Homeboy says

Yeah, funny thing about that. You're healthy until you get sick. We could have a system where people who are healthy AT THE MOMENT don't have to pay anything, but then when they get an illness - be realistic - they aren't going to just let themselves die. Then they will immediately begin screaming for the healthcare that they feel they are all of a sudden entitled to. Nope, it's not gonna work that way. Everybody needs to be in the system. Yeah, if you don't have to go to the doctor right now, you're subsidizing someone else. But when you DO have to go to the doctor, someone else is subsidizing YOU.

All you clowns who think you are immortal can kiss my ass. You're not.

Great post. It's amazing how some people think they are invincible and don't need to rely on anyone else.

Even the Amish must sell quilts so they can buy the stuff they can't produce on their own. We are all dependent on each other...whether we like to admit it or not.

The whole "rugged individualism" meme is bullshit.

This is 4 years old, and so the dollar amounts likely have only increased. But as the uninsured enroll on Obamacare, then the average insured family’s premiums should ultimately decrease by at least $1,017. Want to bet if that happens?

MAY 28, 2009

The average insured family pays an extra $1,017 in premiums each year to cover the cost of health care for the uninsured, according to a new study from Families USA,Reuters reports. Individuals paid an extra $368. These “hidden health costs” costs accrue when “doctors, hospitals and other health providers try to recover the cost of uncompensated care by increasing charges for those with private insurance.” Medicare and Medicaid rules “make it difficult for providers to pass on uncompensated care costs” to the government insurance programs, so “the cost shift was borne almost entirely by private insurers.”

In 2008, the uninsured “received about $116 billion in care.” Of that amount, they paid 37% out-of-pocket, and “government programs and charities paid for another 26 percent.” The remaining $42.7 billion was “passed on to the insured in the form of higher prices for their care,” the study found. The “so-called ‘hidden health tax’” has increased from 2005, when Families USA conducted its last study. At that time, families paid an extra $922 in premiums and individuals an extra $341 (5/28).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2009/may/28/hidden-tax.aspx

lakermania says

It's not hard to figure out why, for instance in Modesto, where they collect on less than 10% of the bills they issue(in large part due to illegal aliens),

The undocumented are not covered under Obamacare and so all will continue to pay for their care, which is why a country should be able to control the demand on its resources by effectively controlling immigration.

He're an article from those dangerous socialists/communists at MarketWatch, a Wall Street Journal website. Everybody knows the Wall Street Journal is run by communists.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-you-dont-know-about-obamacare-2013-09-25

freak80 says

He're an article from those dangerous socialists/communists at MarketWatch, a Wall Street Journal website. Everybody knows the Wall Street Journal is run by communists.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-you-dont-know-about-obamacare-2013-09-25

No mention of why insurance costs continue to increase for the insured. Terrible fluff piece at that.

http://govtslaves.info/obamas-lawyers-officially-admit-birth-certificate-fake/

Usually this is done by insurance companies who are not part of the state exchanges.

It's a dirty trick, but it's on the news already. They try to scare existing clients into renewing faster (by threatening higher fees next year if they don't renew this year asap). So that they would not go to state exchanges. Sneaky.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Homeboy says

I guess Fox Noise's new strategy is to pretend like everything was great before Obamacare, completely ignoring the fact that the system was broken and that we were having DOUBLE DIGIT annual increases in premiums under Bush.

You should know that before the ACA, doctors paid me to show up and receive a savage blow job from nurses who looked exactly like Christina Hendricks. Now, I wake up and Michelle Obama is trying to climb in through the window with a pitch fork waving a clip board with a Death Panel list that bears my name.

Yes, yes....ohhhhh...what is Michelle wearing??? Please, every detail...

lakermania says

Do you really think the rest of the nation pays the same price for health care and insurance that we morons here in California do? Because the rest of the nation does not pay what we pay here in California, might explain why such a large percentage of them are against the ACA. Their insurance, while still high, is nowhere near as insane as it is here.

It's not hard to figure out why, for instance in Modesto, where they collect on less than 10% of the bills they issue(in large part due to illegal aliens), a heart attack without complications costs $92,000, while the same procedure in Danville, Arkansas(who doesn't have the same demographic problem) costs $3300

Actually, individual insurance in California is cheaper than it is in Arkansas.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

Ouch! Sucks to be you, huh?

The amazing thing is, for people who are committed to hating Obamacare, facts don't matter at all.

Homeboy says

The amazing thing is, for people who are committed to hating Obamacare, facts don't matter at all.

Whoa whoa wait...

There was a time when facts mattered?

sbh says

freak80 says

There was a time when facts mattered?

Facts ceased to matter after the fact that Obama won.

Obama won in 50,000 B.C.?

curious2 said: You have got to be kidding. They [Kaiser] are advertising constantly on TV to lure customers to replace the people who leave in frustration or die.
Right. Everyone hates Kaiser. Around the U.S., the commercial health plans of all eight Kaiser Permanente regions finished in the top 25 out of 484 plans ranked. Among the 405 Medicare plans rated, the five highest-scoring in the country were Kaiser Permanente programs.

Your dealing with a monopoly of collusion plagued by group think, health care rankings in America are, according to WHO, quite bad, we spend oodles of money with less results than any other country, some rank the U.S. health care last in performance.

Homeboy says

That has nothing to do with any ads run by Kaiser Permanente.

It's both funny and sad how addicts can believe anything that enables their addiction to continue. It's especially sad when they're addicted to toxic placebos that don't even bring them any benefit. Maybe take up smoking: at least nicotine has cognitive benefits, although you can't get them free off your subsidized insurance. (At least not yet - I remember the RJ Reynolds' "physicians who recommend Camels" and advertising for "your T-zone," T as in throat cancer.) The Kaiser empire foundation push-polling and repeatedly oversampling Democrats all have everything to do with shilling for mandatory insurance/HMO conscription for their "nonprofit" HMO (net revenue > $1bn, tax free) and their expressly for-profit practice groups.

Call it Crazy says

It just FEELS that long......

Do you think having Romney as corporate-raider-in-cheif would be any better?

Would RomneyCare be better than ObamaCare?

From what I'm reading, Kaiser sounds a lot like Guthrie here in the Southern Tier of NY. A monopolized, corporatized medical-industrial complex staffed with incompetent doctors and nurses. It's like going to Wal-Mart for one's health care.

freak80 says

From what I'm reading, Kaiser sounds a lot like Guthrie here in the Southern Tier of NY. A monopolized, corporatized medical-industrial complex staffed with incompetent doctors and nurses. It's like going to Wal-Mart for one's health care.

Actually, everyone I know who has Kaiser likes it. I liked it when I had it.

zzyzzx says

Actually, everyone I know who has Kaiser likes it. I liked it when I had it.

I guess it's all anecdotal.

I had a very bad experience at Guthrie, our local Wal-Mart for health care. I ended up in the hospital thanks to some (legal) mind-altering drugs they prescribed for me.

freak80 says

Whoa whoa wait...

There was a time when facts mattered?

Yeah, back in the time before Fox News.

curious2 says

It's especially sad when they're addicted to toxic placebos that don't even bring them any benefit.

You mean SSRI's?

Homeboy says

Yeah, back in the time before Fox News.

Obligatory:

Oh noes, Big Government!!!

freak80 says

You mean SSRI's?

Yes, they were advertised on TV as "not habit forming" until overwhelming evidence showed physical dependence, in fact some reports found them more addictive than cocaine or heroin. Hospital maternity wards report neonatal convulsions due to withdrawal from paroxetine, which is also a taratogen, but there is no easy advice for women who become pregnant on that drug because withdrawal can also cause miscarriage. Unfortunately, Homefool believes only the manufacturers' and dealers' paid verbiage, and dismisses all contrary evidence. Somehow the "not habit forming" phrase encourages prescribers, so it gets recycled a lot, from the original heroin (advertised as a non-addictive version of morphine) all the way through to Purdue's Oxycontin fraud (and notice the executives weren't imprisoned, even as teens resorted to prostitution and theft to maintain their habit and even Rush Bimbaugh got arrested).

I was put on SSRI's for anxiety disorder. The drugs only made the anxiety worse and I ended up in the hospital with a full-blown panic attack.

But I guess that's a whole new topic.

freak80 says

But I guess that's a whole new topic.

Yes, for now, but I think that with this legislation the Congress crossed the Rubicon. For the first time, they can conscript everyone into contracts with their corporate sponsors, essentially for life. The false purported rationale (if everyone is required to buy whatever their sponsors are selling, then prices will magically be lower) can apply more readily to other markets. For example, if everyone were required to buy a Toll Brothers house, or a GM car, then those corporations could reap economies of scale and reduce advertising costs, and might conceivably pass those savings along to customers. Everyone needs housing - and a car of course, mustn't walk or bicycle anywhere. If everyone were required to eat broccoli and exercise regularly, they might be healthier, so medical costs might be lower with fewer unhealthy people shifting their costs onto everyone else; it will be interesting to see if insurers begin writing those requirements into their "Affordable" policies. Worse, with insurers buying hospital corporations and corporate practice groups, I wonder what "preventive care" mandates may creep into those insurance contracts, in order to comply with the MLR requirements. (Homefool Dislikes and then Ignores the fact that the corporate parent of an insurer can also own a for-profit provider, thus shifting the profit from the insurance side to the network provider side, e.g. go get yourself irradiated so our insurance subsidiary incurs a $1k "medical loss" while our provider subsidiary incurs a $1k revenue; don't worry if you can't afford it, we'll use you as a conduit for government subsidies. The implications are limitless, and I suspect the OP headline marks only the beginning of the nightmares that may flow from this legislation.

curious2 says

Yes, for now, but I think that with this legislation the Congress crossed the Rubicon. For the first time, they can conscript everyone into contracts with
their corporate sponsors, essentially for life.

So it sounds like America's health care racket (I mean system) will be even worse than before?

Right now we seem to have the worst of "socialized medicine" (high costs) and the wrost of "free market medicine" (lack of access).

But I guess the whole notion of going to a Canadian type system is just too "socialist" for God fearin' hard workin' 'Murricans.

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

Wow, you really believe that there's a "liberal" media bias, don't you?

Amazing.

freak80 says

So it sounds like America's health care racket (I mean system) will be even worse than before?

How so?

Before we had:

1. Double-digit yearly increases in healthcare premiums

2. Anyone could be denied health insurance simply at the whim of the insurance company

3. If the insurance company deemed you a high risk, there was no limit on how much extra they could charge you for insurance (that's if they even offered insurance to you at all)

4. Even if you worked 40 hours or more per week, your employer didn't have to even offer you health insurance.

5. For jobs that did provide health insurance, many people were stuck at their job because they couldn't afford to lose the insurance.

6. Medical costs were the number one reason for personal bankruptcy.

7. There was no standardization of what coverage was offered and therefore no way to compare policies in an informed way.

So please, explain how it's going to be worse than THAT.

Homeboy says

Wow, you really believe that there's a "liberal" media bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Wow, you really believe that there's a "Fox News" bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Homeboy says

So please, explain how it's going to be worse than THAT.

I am sure that even you understand that we simply exchanged one set of problems for another set of problems.

Homeboy says

7. There was no standardization of what coverage was offered and therefore no way to compare policies in an informed way.

The standardizations were at the state level, now they might be at the national level (unless some states have requirements that exceed the federal requirements).

Homeboy says

6. Medical costs were the number one reason for personal bankruptcy.

Tell that to the people whose rates went up like the person in the article. They should be able to buy the same bare bones plan that they had before, but Obama decided differently.

Homeboy says

4. Even if you worked 40 hours or more per week, your employer didn't have to even offer you health insurance.

And they still don't under some circumstances. This will keep some small companies from expanding. Exactly how does that help?

Homeboy says

1. Double-digit yearly increases in healthcare premiums

Which will most likely occur under Obamacare as well.

EBGuy says

It's pretty clear from the article that they had some type of catastrophic care plan. In fact, if you look at articles that are critical of ACA, most compare catastrophic plans for the young and healthy to what will be available under ACA. It's somewhat sneaky, as it's not an apples to apples comparison, but it is also legitimate as many of the catastrophic care plans will no longer be offered. The ACA limits premiums for older folks to 3x those of younger folks. The younger generation does take a bit of a hit.

Also, don't forget that pre-aca, some policies had a lifetime cap. So, have an expensive ailment, hit the cap, goodbye.

And, through the magic of recission, when someone files an expensive claim, the insurance company then could look for some overlooked pre-existing condition and cancel the policy retroactively. Without returns of premiums of course. "Oh, I see that you forgot to mention that you went to the doctor for the flu on Nov 2, 2002. So of course this is a pre-existing condition, and we can't cover your cancer treatment."

And in both cases, it would be difficult to impossible to get another policy.

But yes, it did only cost $333 per month.

SiO2 says

Also, don't forget that pre-aca, some policies had a lifetime cap. So, have an expensive ailment, hit the cap, goodbye.

The lifetime cap was a good thing. Eliminating that means they we will be paying millions so that someone can live an extra few weeks.

SiO2 says

through the magic of recission, when someone files an expensive claim, the insurance company then could look for some overlooked pre-existing condition and cancel the policy retroactively.

Insurers can still do that. The ability to rescind for "fraud" was preserved specifically, so don't forget that headcold or yeast infection you had as a teenager, they can say you "defrauded" them. I lose patience with Obamadrones who drone on about "no more pre-existing conditions" as if their snake oil was going to cure everyone of everything, heal the lame, etc. All you've done is handed the same people with the same incentives more money and more money and power than ever before. As Homefool's own statistics showed, premium increases had been slowing because they were already too high; costs should have fallen, but Obamacare stepped in to push them even higher than would have occurred under prior law. Morons who know nothing about math fell for scary headlines about how premiums on their prior rates would go higher than total GDP, a mathematically impossible event, but it became somehow a rallying cry to increase spending further than had ever been possible before. This being a real estate forum, Obamacare is like requiring everyone to sign a 125% mortgage backed by Fannie & Freddie so you can overpay for your mandatory house that's badly built on a shoddy foundation and with a leaky roof but it costs triple because you have to buy it no matter what and don't worry if you can't afford it the subsidies will shift the costs onto your neighbors' kids.