Obama says 'sorry' to Americans losing health insurance

[NeverSure]

A large portion of the people "opposing" Obamacare are for a REAL nationalized health care system. Duh! Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority. I still think it's not Obama's fault, majority support for the real solution, Canadian style, was impossible. Maybe in 50 years ...

BTW, not suggesting cloning the Canadian system literally. There are many civilized countries with similar approaches. A better nationalized American system could have learned from some of them and adapted to the American situation.

Of course it isn't Obama's fault.

But I would ask who has been tryng to sell this since 2008 and is still trying...and...who signed the bill into law?

ACA_ObamaSigEd1.jpeg

.

It's time to set much of the record straight.

Insurance plans being “canceled” or people facing “sticker shock” are almost exclusively limited to the individual insurance market, which covers between 5 to 6 percent of the population.

It's noted that 15 million people, or just 5 percent of the population, purchases health insurance policies on the individual market and that more than 80% don't stay on the same plan for more than two consecutive years, so the individuals who will be affected by “provider shock” are those who had been changing providers almost every year anyway. This is a non-issue enemies of popular health and medical care are trying to exploit.

I read Bob Cesca in the Huffington Post who points out that UnitedHealthcare, one of the most notorious insurance providers before the ACA was passed, has the horrendous reputation of summarily canceling policies and arbitrarily penalizing customers. So it's no surprise that when ObamaCare came online UnitedHealthcare decided to exit the individual insurance racket. By doing so, the notorious UnitedHealthcare has thus avoided taking on less healthy customers early in the exchange sign-up process, thereby forcing other insurers to absorb the risk. This is an example of the clever and sinister schemes against ObamaCare by a number of insurance companies.

Moreover, a number of insurance companies are circumventing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Certain insurance companies are doing this by changing policies in very small ways, thus exempting themselves from the grandfather clause of the ACA.

Many insurance companies are doing this by telling millions of policy holders to purchase the insurance companies' own, more expensive plan. They do this without saying anything about provisions of the ACA or about the possibility of ACA options that have a lower cost than the companies' own expensive policies, or about the health insurance exchanges. For example, Anthem Blue Cross of California, which is currently being sued in court, sent deceptive letters to policyholders suggesting they switch plans specifically with the intent of making the policyholders lose their grandfathered status.

Worse yet, a number of insurance companies have already threatened to raise premiums on small businesses and the individual insurance market by 25% to 116% in 2014. The right wingers like to ignore that these insurance companies were infamous for dropping people, raising rates astronomically, changing coverage, and generally mistreating policyholders long before Obamacare. If there's anyone Americans should target with our anger and outrage, it’s the same culprits it’s always been, a substantial number of the health insurance companies.

The fact is that while about 3% of Americans will pay for more insurance coverage than they want to and are likely to experience a premium increase, 97% of Americans will experience virtually no effect or a positive effect on their insurance coverage and premium.

And, yeah, the website is screwed up. However, the federal website wouldn’t have had so many people to serve if there weren’t so many states refusing to set up their own exchanges. Had the Confederate states with Republican Party governors cooperated with the ACA by setting up their own websites, there surely would have been far fewer people massing at the federal website. Indeed, Kentucky is being praised as a model because not only is it a red state with a functioning healthcare website, its Democratic Party governor stands opposite the Republican and right wing governors who have refused to set up ObamaCare websites in their states.

The Real Villains Behind the Criticisms of Obamacare

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/10/real-villains-criticisms-obamacare.html

Another Obamacare 'Horror Story' Debunked; and, No, the President Didn't Lie About the Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/another-obamacare-horror-_b_4229439.html

Publicus my man, ya gotta do better than that. You're basically saying the same thing I am, but leaving out a few things such as many doctors and hospitals refusing to accept these new Obamacare compliant plans. (link provided where I posted it.)

Obamacare did nothing to lower the costs of health care in the US, and did nothing to control the insurance companies. It looks to me like perhaps we agree on that.

But I think you're underreporting the number of people who are losing their health insurance and will have to scramble to find a replacement and then hope hospitals and doctors will accept it.

Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had

And glance at this link. The news gets worse by the day. Link

And this:

Obamacare fallout: Millions face sticker shock following insurance ...

Edited November 11, 2013 by NeverSure

[chuckd]

A large portion of the people "opposing" Obamacare are for a REAL nationalized health care system. Duh! Obama tried a middle approach, the Romney approach ironically, and didn't solve the problem or please the majority. I still think it's not Obama's fault, majority support for the real solution, Canadian style, was impossible. Maybe in 50 years ...

BTW, not suggesting cloning the Canadian system literally. There are many civilized countries with similar approaches. A better nationalized American system could have learned from some of them and adapted to the American situation.

Of course it isn't Obama's fault.

But I would ask who has been tryng to sell this since 2008 and is still trying...and...who signed the bill into law?

ACA_ObamaSigEd1.jpeg

.

It's time to set much of the record straight.

Insurance plans being “canceled” or people facing “sticker shock” are almost exclusively limited to the individual insurance market, which covers between 5 to 6 percent of the population.

It's noted that 15 million people, or just 5 percent of the population, purchases health insurance policies on the individual market and that more than 80% don't stay on the same plan for more than two consecutive years, so the individuals who will be affected by “provider shock” are those who had been changing providers almost every year anyway. This is a non-issue enemies of popular health and medical care are trying to exploit.

I read Bob Cesca in the Huffington Post who points out that UnitedHealthcare, one of the most notorious insurance providers before the ACA was passed, has the horrendous reputation of summarily canceling policies and arbitrarily penalizing customers. So it's no surprise that when ObamaCare came online UnitedHealthcare decided to exit the individual insurance racket. By doing so, the notorious UnitedHealthcare has thus avoided taking on less healthy customers early in the exchange sign-up process, thereby forcing other insurers to absorb the risk. This is an example of the clever and sinister schemes against ObamaCare by a number of insurance companies.

Moreover, a number of insurance companies are circumventing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Certain insurance companies are doing this by changing policies in very small ways, thus exempting themselves from the grandfather clause of the ACA.

Many insurance companies are doing this by telling millions of policy holders to purchase the insurance companies' own, more expensive plan. They do this without saying anything about provisions of the ACA or about the possibility of ACA options that have a lower cost than the companies' own expensive policies, or about the health insurance exchanges. For example, Anthem Blue Cross of California, which is currently being sued in court, sent deceptive letters to policyholders suggesting they switch plans specifically with the intent of making the policyholders lose their grandfathered status.

Worse yet, a number of insurance companies have already threatened to raise premiums on small businesses and the individual insurance market by 25% to 116% in 2014. The right wingers like to ignore that these insurance companies were infamous for dropping people, raising rates astronomically, changing coverage, and generally mistreating policyholders long before Obamacare. If there's anyone Americans should target with our anger and outrage, it’s the same culprits it’s always been, a substantial number of the health insurance companies.

The fact is that while about 3% of Americans will pay for more insurance coverage than they want to and are likely to experience a premium increase, 97% of Americans will experience virtually no effect or a positive effect on their insurance coverage and premium.

And, yeah, the website is screwed up. However, the federal website wouldn’t have had so many people to serve if there weren’t so many states refusing to set up their own exchanges. Had the Confederate states with Republican Party governors cooperated with the ACA by setting up their own websites, there surely would have been far fewer people massing at the federal website. Indeed, Kentucky is being praised as a model because not only is it a red state with a functioning healthcare website, its Democratic Party governor stands opposite the Republican and right wing governors who have refused to set up ObamaCare websites in their states.

The Real Villains Behind the Criticisms of Obamacare

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/10/real-villains-criticisms-obamacare.html

Another Obamacare 'Horror Story' Debunked; and, No, the President Didn't Lie About the Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/another-obamacare-horror-_b_4229439.html

Since you are setting the record straight, why not try all of the record.

What does your friend Bob Cesca think will happen when EMPLOYERS have to provide insurance to their employees under the regulations as promulgated by Seblius and her minions?

As you might recall, Obama, despite what the law said, arbitrarily decided to delay the mandate for EMPLOYERS by one year. The action taken by the "Prez" means that some 95% of the American people, according to your own words, are not even included in the conflagration known as the Obamacare Rollout.

What's going to happen when that 95% hits the fan?

Here's a sneak preview:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had

BY KEVIN G. HALL AND ANITA KUMAR

McClatchy Washington BureauNovember 7, 2013

From the article to comply with fair use rules:

"And a report in 2010 said that as many as 69 percent of certain employer-based insurance plans would lose that protection, meaning as many as 41 million people could lose their plans even if they wanted to keep them and would be forced into other plans. Another 11 million who bought their own insurance also could lose their plans. Combined, as many as 52 million Americans could lose or have lost old insurance plans."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

No amount of spin can change the fact that Obamacare was a bad bill and is now a bad law and no amount of spin can change the fact that it was completely a product of the Democratic Congress and Democratic President.

A pig with lipstick is still a pig.

[samran]

I always found it bizzare that the US relies on employers to provide insurance for people.

The structure of the health care market is already inherently biased to higher costs and worse outcomes. Loading that responsibility on employers is, to me, basically another excessive 'tax' burden, one which is beyond the control of the government.

Providing health care should be the governments job.

[NeverSure]

"It’s ObamaCare insurance that’s ‘substandard’"

"‘Substandard” and “cut- rate” is what President Obama calls the health plans that at least 3.75 million Americans have lost, even though they wanted to keep them.

Even as he apologizes for his repeated false promises that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” Obama is now telling Americans another whopper — claiming that the insurance they can get on ObamaCare exchanges is a better deal.

Sorry, the facts tell a different story. Coverage via the exchanges is looking a lot like Medicaid, despite the fancy bronze/silver/gold/platinum labels.

The vast majority of exchange plans won’t allow access to many doctors and hospitals you prefer. Many plans exclude the top-drawer academic hospitals, like Cedars-Sinai in LA, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and New York Presbyterian here in the city.

Instead, the law requires exchange plans to cover care at “essential community providers . . . that serve predominantly low-income, medically underserved individuals” [sec. 1311c(1)C]. That means clinics, public hospitals and hospitals largely serving the Medicaid community."

More... New York Post

(Emphasis mine)

[chuckd]

"Despite promises (by Democrat Nancy Pelosi) that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%."

increase up to 413%... Link

The Committee you reference is controlled by the Republican Party.

The Committee is neither unbiased nor is it a neutral disinterested party.

The Committee you reference is a cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted by anyone interested in a fair shake and a fair deal in respect to health insurance and medical care.

Of course the Committee is controlled by Republicans. EVERY House of Representatives Committee is controlled by Republicans since Republicans have control of the House of Representatives.

Just as the Senate Committees are controlled by Democrats since the Democrats control the Senate. I am betting you have no trouble believing any report from a Senatorial Committee, however.

This from Wikipedia concerning the Committee you called a "cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted.."

"The Committee on Energy and Commerce is one of the oldest standing committees of the United States House of Representatives. Established in 1795, it has operated continuously—with various name changes and jurisdictional changes—for more than 200 years. The two other House standing committees with such continuous operation are the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Rules Committee."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Energy_and_Commerce

What I am amazed at is your attack on a legitimate Committee of Congress yet you claim, in a previous post, that some editorialist from The Huffington Post is the last word and use his editorial to help "set the record straight".

The Huffington Post is nothing more than an extended arm of the Obama administration masquerading as a media outlet.

Edited November 11, 2013 by chuckd

[chuckd]

I always found it bizzare that the US relies on employers to provide insurance for people.

The structure of the health care market is already inherently biased to higher costs and worse outcomes. Loading that responsibility on employers is, to me, basically another excessive 'tax' burden, one which is beyond the control of the government.

Providing health care should be the governments job.

And now you can see how the government handles something it assumes to be its responsibility.

The list is endless.

A few other examples are available when one thinks of the US Postal System, Amtrak, protection of US Consulates, NSA, IRS, etc, etc, etc.

[NeverSure]

I always found it bizzare that the US relies on employers to provide insurance for people.

The structure of the health care market is already inherently biased to higher costs and worse outcomes. Loading that responsibility on employers is, to me, basically another excessive 'tax' burden, one which is beyond the control of the government.

Providing health care should be the governments job.

When I was very young, I didn't know anyone who had health insurance. People simply paid for their own care.

The cost of health care was pretty cheap too. Sort of like Thailand now, just about anyone (farangs) could afford to see a doctor or even have surgery. It's amazing how many farangs are self insured in Thailand, innit?

Amazingly (not), it was when the big corporations and mainstream employers started providing insurance that the costs began to skyrocket. It was in the late 1960's that government also started throwing money at the health care industry by inventing medicare and medicaid.

When my first of 2 children was born in about 1970, the doctor's (pediatrician's) fee all in was US $300. That was all the prenatal visits and the actual delivery. The hospital charge was the same - $300 and that included putting the baby in the nursery and the mother in a hospital room for a couple of extra days. $600 all in. I happily paid it. They would have put me on an affordable payment plan if I hadn't had the cash.

People can only pay (and care providers can only charge) what people can afford to pay. Even up until now every hospital has a charity fund and if a bill is obviously not collectible due to lack of abilitly, they charge it off. Why spend good money chasing bad?

So, rather than have government struggle with an NHS and try to control costs even to the extent of rationing for some, the private sector (people) used to control the cost by ability to pay.

Our main Western governments, all of which are going broke trying to take care of people, will fail us. They simply can't afford all of the "entitlements" indefinitely.

I pine for the good old days before our governments got so big and unwieldy. (And broke)

[samran]

I always found it bizzare that the US relies on employers to provide insurance for people.

The structure of the health care market is already inherently biased to higher costs and worse outcomes. Loading that responsibility on employers is, to me, basically another excessive 'tax' burden, one which is beyond the control of the government.

Providing health care should be the governments job.

And now you can see how the government handles something it assumes to be its responsibility.

The list is endless.

A few other examples are available when one thinks of the US Postal System, Amtrak, protection of US Consulates, NSA, IRS, etc, etc, etc.

Chuck.

You won't believe this. But I am a right wing economist. I'm very, very conservative on economic matters. Probably more conservative than many here even. In addition, I don't like pork. I hate rent seekers. So when you see me lambast the NRA for instance, it is because they insidious rent seekers. Same with the AMA. Same with basically any other industry group. They distort markets in their favour, to the expense of everyone else.

The reason why I like my economcis in the way I do, is that for the most part, the market works. What do I mean by that? The market distributes most goods and services:

1) to the widest audience possible

2) for the lowest price.

Those two criteria are economic efficiency in a nutshell.

The US is a perfect case study of letting the market work in health care, instead of the above, you get:

1) less people covered than other comparable nations

2) the 'price' of the good double for what other comparable nations pay.

Those two outcomes are perfect examples gross economic inefficiency.

There are few areas where government needs to be, defense being one of them. Education is another. Health is the third.

We don't need civil servant doctors and nurses delivering these services. The private sector is perfectly able to do that (doctors in the rest of the developed world also live in best suburbs and drive their kids to private school in their BMW's too) and peope can still choose their doctors.

But you need a single payer.

The easiest thing in the US to do was to extend Medicare to everyone, and keep private insurers for a top-up for 'extra's' - essentially non-urgent medical proceedures. But the 'S' word scares you guys every time.

Edited November 11, 2013 by samran

[Jingthing]

Every society seems to have amazingly stupid BLIND SPOTS that are easily visible to outsiders. In the USA the totally insane RESISTANCE to a civilized single payer health care system is one of them. Same with the gun culture.

[samran]

Every society seems to have amazingly stupid BLIND SPOTS that are easily visible to outsiders. In the USA the totally insane RESISTANCE to a civilized single payer health care system is one of them. Same with the gun culture.

I'm a big fan of the US. A big big fan. I've always been impressed with the country's ability to see the forest for the tree's and to deal and tackle with important issues in ways no other nation has ever been able to.

But on the issue of health care, it is like you are trying to defy economic gravity and focus in on the minutiae instead of the big picture. It is a bit like watching one of those road runner cartoons where the W.E Coyote has already run off the side of the cliff, and while floating there, it takes a couple of seconds for him to realise that he's about to fall in the canyon below.

Edited November 11, 2013 by samran

[Publicus]

"Despite promises (by Democrat Nancy Pelosi) that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%."

increase up to 413%... Link

The Committee you reference is controlled by the Republican Party.

The Committee is neither unbiased nor is it a neutral disinterested party.

The Committee you reference is a cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted by anyone interested in a fair shake and a fair deal in respect to health insurance and medical care.

Of course the Committee is controlled by Republicans. EVERY House of Representatives Committee is controlled by Republicans since Republicans have control of the House of Representatives.

Just as the Senate Committees are controlled by Democrats since the Democrats control the Senate. I am betting you have no trouble believing any report from a Senatorial Committee, however.

This from Wikipedia concerning the Committee you called a "cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted.."

"The Committee on Energy and Commerce is one of the oldest standing committees of the United States House of Representatives. Established in 1795, it has operated continuously—with various name changes and jurisdictional changes—for more than 200 years. The two other House standing committees with such continuous operation are the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Rules Committee."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Energy_and_Commerce

What I am amazed at is your attack on a legitimate Committee of Congress yet you claim, in a previous post, that some editorialist from The Huffington Post is the last word and use his editorial to help "set the record straight".

The Huffington Post is nothing more than an extended arm of the Obama administration masquerading as a media outlet.

I'd listen to a citizen commentator/analyst any day of the week and twice on Sundays before I'd listen to a Republican Party controlled Committee of the Congress.

I'd doubt the particular Congressional Committee was functioning well in 1795 either even though the Republican Party wasn't to come into existence for another 50 or so years.

The Republican Party has had one policy and doctrine since Barack Hussein Obama became president in 2009 - one single dogma - if Prez Obama is for it, the Republican Party is against it.

In the absolute.

And now we have conscious and willful destructive sabotage.

Republicans Deliberately Sabotaged the ACA Website, Hoping the Law Would Implode

For weeks I’ve been wondering why no one is talking about how Republicans sabotaged the ACA rollout by refusing to implement state run marketplaces, and thus unexpectedly forcing all of that additional burden on to the federal website.

It reminded me of Republicans denying security funding for Benghazi and then blaming Obama and Clinton for the lack of security in Benghazi.

.

But today, Todd Purdum at Politico exposed how Republicans sabotaged the ACA rollout. One small part of their plan was the rejection of the state run exchanges.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/01/republicans-deliberately-sabotaged-aca-website-hoping-implode.html

[NeverSure]

Every society seems to have amazingly stupid BLIND SPOTS that are easily visible to outsiders. In the USA the totally insane RESISTANCE to a civilized single payer health care system is one of them. Same with the gun culture.

This topic isn't about the US gun culture.

[Jingthing]

Every society seems to have amazingly stupid BLIND SPOTS that are easily visible to outsiders. In the USA the totally insane RESISTANCE to a civilized single payer health care system is one of them. Same with the gun culture.

This topic isn't about the US gun culture.

Noted.

[chuckd]

I always found it bizzare that the US relies on employers to provide insurance for people.

The structure of the health care market is already inherently biased to higher costs and worse outcomes. Loading that responsibility on employers is, to me, basically another excessive 'tax' burden, one which is beyond the control of the government.

Providing health care should be the governments job.

And now you can see how the government handles something it assumes to be its responsibility.

The list is endless.

A few other examples are available when one thinks of the US Postal System, Amtrak, protection of US Consulates, NSA, IRS, etc, etc, etc.

Chuck.

You won't believe this. But I am a right wing economist. I'm very, very conservative on economic matters. Probably more conservative than many here even. In addition, I don't like pork. I hate rent seekers. So when you see me lambast the NRA for instance, it is because they insidious rent seekers. Same with the AMA. Same with basically any other industry group. They distort markets in their favour, to the expense of everyone else.

The reason why I like my economcis in the way I do, is that for the most part, the market works. What do I mean by that? The market distributes most goods and services:

1) to the widest audience possible

2) for the lowest price.

Those two criteria are economic efficiency in a nutshell.

The US is a perfect case study of letting the market work in health care, instead of the above, you get:

1) less people covered than other comparable nations

2) the 'price' of the good double for what other comparable nations pay.

Those two outcomes are perfect examples gross economic inefficiency.

There are few areas where government needs to be, defense being one of them. Education is another. Health is the third.

We don't need civil servant doctors and nurses delivering these services. The private sector is perfectly able to do that (doctors in the rest of the developed world also live in best suburbs and drive their kids to private school in their BMW's too) and peope can still choose their doctors.

But you need a single payer.

The easiest thing in the US to do was to extend Medicare to everyone, and keep private insurers for a top-up for 'extra's' - essentially non-urgent medical proceedures. But the 'S' word scares you guys every time.

I agree with your description of the law of supply and demand. A really free enterprise system of supply and demand should drive the health care market. Unfortunately that is not what we have in the US.

In the US, each individual state has an Insurance Commission that establishes guidelines, rates and requirements for obtaining health insurance in their state. These commissions set up requirements unique to their state in order to satisfy their individual needs.

As a consequence of this, they have established that one cannot purchase insurance from an out-of-state source, but must use only those companies authorized by the state to provide health insurance services. In other words, if I live in Texas I cannot purchase a health insurance policy from an Oklahoma based carrier even though the Oklahoma policy might be cheaper with more benefits.

In short, there are currently 50 monopolies running and operating the health insurance industry in the US. These monopolies establish who can operate within the monopoly and what they can charge for those services they are allowed to offer.

The law of supply and demand goes out the window under this scenario.

If the Feds felt they should get involved in the first place, perhaps they should have removed all blocks on where and with whom you may obtain your personal insurance services.

The second thing that could be done to lower health care costs is to establish national tort reform. Malpractice insurance a doctor is required to have is expensive and adds to the cost of care, but a larger cost to medical care is when a doctor runs an excessive number of tests on a patient in a CYA attempt to avoid a legal claim against him/her at some later date. Let the doctors run their practices without fear of some lawyer chasing them down the hospital halls with a law suit in hand demanding millions of dollars in settlement so the lawyer can get his 30-40% off the top.

Healthcare reform should have been and could have been done in incremental steps. Fix 2-3 wrongs at a time, ask for and receive bi-partisan support and fix the problems. Fix the pre-existing condition problem along with tort reform and shopping across state lines could probably have received support from both sides of the aisle. When that is accomplished and operational, move to other matters.

Had the President been less ambitious and Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) less dictatorial and all of them considerably more honest and open during the legislative process, they might have even been a little more successful with the gargantuan monster the three of them invented.

Obamacare is an over-reach by an overly zealous Democratic led Congress and Democratic President looking for a personal legacy and not looking for what was the best for his country.

Just my thoughts without one single link to back them up.

[Jingthing]

Some more on the blind spot.

Sensible Americans will be pushing for a REAL SOLUTION, national health care, for as long as it takes and it may indeed take another 50 years. SAD!

The American health care system sucks. We pay more for health care than any country in the world and we only get average results. And tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance. Our latest attempt to address this situation, Obamacare, is a mind-numbing kluge of laws and policies that is off to a very rough start. And even if Obamacare ends up working, it will only fix part of the problem

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/11/10/national_health_insurance_britain_s_system_is_great.html

Edited November 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

But you need a single payer.

The easiest thing in the US to do was to extend Medicare to everyone, and keep private insurers for a top-up for 'extra's' - essentially non-urgent medical proceedures. But the 'S' word scares you guys every time.

Wow. Apparently you don't know that doctors and hospitals are private businesses and they don't have to accept medicare insurance and many won't. Apparently you haven't seen my links showing that many have stated that they won't accept the new Obamacare exchange policies either because the set payment schedules for both are inadequate. Giving more people medicare would only intensify that. Many health care providers figure a ratio. For instance, a private doctor's office might accept one medicare patient per day, or none, or anyone who wants to come.

Let's talk about the law of supply and demand in a free market that you like.

1. You can control the price of something, but when you do you can't control the supply.

2. You can control the supply of something, but when you do you can't control the price.

For instance, I can tell farmers that they can't charge more than 1 baht for an ear of corn, but then the farmers will decide whether to supply it and how much to supply. Or, I can set rules to where across the whole nation farmers can't grow more than 100 pounds of corn, but then I can't control the price.

If I do either of the above, I also won't be able to control the value of farm land. Not unless I have a communist country; a model that's never worked.

Governments who buy into socialized health care are trying to control both sides and they don't see that it isn't working long term. Medicare isn't working long term. They already know the date when it goes broke. Add a bunch of people to it and it just advances the date it goes broke.

All of our larger Western governments have gotten too deep into supporting the people in various ways including health care, and they will all go broke and we WILL see another great crash and depression.

We are all printing money to pay for what the people demand and there is an end to that. People vote for their welfare today instead of for their grand children's futures.

I'm watching the Western world in retreat, and listening to people cheer it on.

[samran]

Chuck, no offence, but what you describe is the minuitae I wrote about.

You allow cross border insurance, all you will see is consolidation in the industry. It will be a investment bankers dream. M&A's everwhere. You'd be left with a few big players, perhaps with even less choice in smaller markets. We've seen it globally with insurance companies. The same fate awaits the US.

Tort reform - great red herring. Important, but doesn't address the root cause of the costs, namely, there is no regulation of the prices. I've said this before and this will be the last time I say it on this thread at least but consumption of health care isn't like any isn't like any other consumer product on the face of the earth.

You don't say, 'well I'll need some cancer coverage when I'm 40, and I'll only need broken leg insurance in my 20's.' Consumers are terrible predicters of what 'level of health care' they need. You either cover just about all or nothing, with some trimmings around the side for copays.

As consumers, unlike any other good, we don't choose the timing of when we consume heath care, and our choices for who can treat us are already limited (my local doc won't be able to help me with brain surgery), so given this, unless prices are regulated, then you aren't going to fix much with what you have described.

With everything, there are trade offs.

- for the US style system (at present) you get medical care when you want (if you can afford it) and the expense of those who can't and equity consierations.There is already 'rationing' everywhere in the US system, one based on price rather than need.

- for everywhere else, rationing takes place 'need' rather than 'price'. So the waiting list does exist for less urgent treatment in some cases. There is nothing to say though there can't be a fully fledged private system running alongside that, taking up that slack that you inevitably get from public systems.

[samran]

But you need a single payer.

The easiest thing in the US to do was to extend Medicare to everyone, and keep private insurers for a top-up for 'extra's' - essentially non-urgent medical proceedures. But the 'S' word scares you guys every time.

Wow. Apparently you don't know that doctors and hospitals are private businesses and they don't have to accept medicare insurance and many won't. Apparently you haven't seen my links showing that many have stated that they won't accept the new Obamacare exchange policies either because the set payment schedules for both are inadequate. Giving more people medicare would only intensify that. Many health care providers figure a ratio. For instance, a private doctor's office might accept one medicare patient per day, or none, or anyone who wants to come.

Again, minutae stuff. Where's the America who can focus on the bigger picture?

Doctors will have to accept medicare, if is the main game in town. It can be structured that they can still buy their new European car each year while making the 'cost' to the consumer affordable, if not entirely free.

Medicare doesn't have to cover everything, just most things. No elective cosmetic plastic surgery for instance. You can even keep some co-pays, so people don't overwhelm the system, but still have access to it if you really need it.

Governments who buy into socialized health care are trying to control both sides and they don't see that it isn't working long term. Medicare isn't working long term. They already know the date when it goes broke. Add a bunch of people to it and it just advances the date it goes broke.

Medicare is going broke as it only accepts the worse risks - ie old people. Of course what someone pays in will never cover the cost of treatment.

You add more people in, the good risks, you balance that out and then some. More young healthy people than old ones.

Edited November 11, 2013 by samran

[NeverSure]

Some more on the blind spot.

Sensible Americans will be pushing for a REAL SOLUTION, national health care, for as long as it takes and it may indeed take another 50 years. SAD!

Sensible Americans will be pushing for a balanced budget so that we don't wind up like Greece, but I'm afraid the idiots will prevail and I'll be eating Baklavas.

[Jingthing]

The Obama demonizers didn't even WANT this to work in the first place! They are cheerleading for failure at the very least. In other words, these people are not to be taken seriously as their words and actions are not in the best interest of the American people, which would be for Obamacare to at least be HELPFUL. Nobody imagines it is the perfect solution of course.

[NeverSure]

But you need a single payer.

The easiest thing in the US to do was to extend Medicare to everyone, and keep private insurers for a top-up for 'extra's' - essentially non-urgent medical proceedures. But the 'S' word scares you guys every time.

Wow. Apparently you don't know that doctors and hospitals are private businesses and they don't have to accept medicare insurance and many won't. Apparently you haven't seen my links showing that many have stated that they won't accept the new Obamacare exchange policies either because the set payment schedules for both are inadequate. Giving more people medicare would only intensify that. Many health care providers figure a ratio. For instance, a private doctor's office might accept one medicare patient per day, or none, or anyone who wants to come.

Again, minutae stuff. Where's the America who can focus on the bigger picture?

Doctors will have to accept medicare, if is the main game in town. It can be structured that they can still buy their new European car each year while making the 'cost' to the consumer affordable, if not entirely free.

Medicare doesn't have to cover everything, just most things. No elective cosmetic plastic surgery for instance. You can even keep some co-pays, so people don't overwhelm the system, but still have access to it if you really need it.

Governments who buy into socialized health care are trying to control both sides and they don't see that it isn't working long term. Medicare isn't working long term. They already know the date when it goes broke. Add a bunch of people to it and it just advances the date it goes broke.

Medicare is going broke as it only accepts the worse risks - ie old people. Of course what someone pays in will never cover the cost of treatment.

You add more people in, the good risks, you balance that out and then some. More young healthy people than old ones.

First, I paid into Medicare all of my working life which was from about age 14 IIRC. It was about 6% of my income all of those years. With the magic of compound interest, if the government had put that into my own savings account all of these years there would be so much in there that I could never use it.

It's going broke because the politicians broke into the fund and spent the money and never paid any interest on it. It's a Ponzi scheme. That's what happens when you give the government your money. Waste and fraud.

[Scott]

Every society seems to have amazingly stupid BLIND SPOTS that are easily visible to outsiders. In the USA the totally insane RESISTANCE to a civilized single payer health care system is one of them. Same with the gun culture.

This topic isn't about the US gun culture.

Thanks. If we need help with moderating, we will contact you.

Off-topic posts deleted.

[chuckd]

"Despite promises (by Democrat Nancy Pelosi) that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%."

increase up to 413%... Link

The Committee you reference is controlled by the Republican Party.

The Committee is neither unbiased nor is it a neutral disinterested party.

The Committee you reference is a cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted by anyone interested in a fair shake and a fair deal in respect to health insurance and medical care.

Of course the Committee is controlled by Republicans. EVERY House of Representatives Committee is controlled by Republicans since Republicans have control of the House of Representatives.

Just as the Senate Committees are controlled by Democrats since the Democrats control the Senate. I am betting you have no trouble believing any report from a Senatorial Committee, however.

This from Wikipedia concerning the Committee you called a "cheap political vehicle which absolutely cannot be trusted.."

"The Committee on Energy and Commerce is one of the oldest standing committees of the United States House of Representatives. Established in 1795, it has operated continuously—with various name changes and jurisdictional changes—for more than 200 years. The two other House standing committees with such continuous operation are the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Rules Committee."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Energy_and_Commerce

What I am amazed at is your attack on a legitimate Committee of Congress yet you claim, in a previous post, that some editorialist from The Huffington Post is the last word and use his editorial to help "set the record straight".

The Huffington Post is nothing more than an extended arm of the Obama administration masquerading as a media outlet.

I'd listen to a citizen commentator/analyst any day of the week and twice on Sundays before I'd listen to a Republican Party controlled Committee of the Congress.

I'd doubt the particular Congressional Committee was functioning well in 1795 either even though the Republican Party wasn't to come into existence for another 50 or so years.

The Republican Party has had one policy and doctrine since Barack Hussein Obama became president in 2009 - one single dogma - if Prez Obama is for it, the Republican Party is against it.

In the absolute.

And now we have conscious and willful destructive sabotage.

Republicans Deliberately Sabotaged the ACA Website, Hoping the Law Would Implode

For weeks I’ve been wondering why no one is talking about how Republicans sabotaged the ACA rollout by refusing to implement state run marketplaces, and thus unexpectedly forcing all of that additional burden on to the federal website.

It reminded me of Republicans denying security funding for Benghazi and then blaming Obama and Clinton for the lack of security in Benghazi.

.

But today, Todd Purdum at Politico exposed how Republicans sabotaged the ACA rollout. One small part of their plan was the rejection of the state run exchanges.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/01/republicans-deliberately-sabotaged-aca-website-hoping-implode.html

"I'd listen to a citizen commentator/analyst any day of the week and twice on Sundays before I'd listen to a Republican Party controlled Committee of the Congress."

Yeah, Rachel Maddow is so much more trustworthy than a Congressional Committee.

Your citizen commentator/analyst is full of mud.

The bill itself provided that if a state should opt out of providing their own exchange, the federal exchange would take over in its absence. What they were telling ths states was...if you don't do it then we will.

The act was signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010, yet the final rule on exchange establishment was not published until March 27, 2012...two full years after the bill was enacted and signed.

The states were then given until January 1, 2013 to apply for and have their exchange application approved by Sebelius. If a state exchange had not been approved by January 1, 2013, the federal exchange would take over for that state.

In short Sebelius' toiling workers took two years to establish the guidelines and then gave the states a little over nine months to figure them out, work out how they were going to operate an exchange and apply for it.

Most Republican states opted out for the reason that they should have. Its a federal law imposing unprecedented mandates on citizens to purchase a service many of them felt they do not need. As the states were not required to do it why should they spend state funds doing it.

This administration, in its finite wisdom, somehow did not anticipate the worst. The worst being that so many states would not jump on the band wagon and welcome the federal takeover of one sixth of the national economy with open arms. They had no contingency plans to offset half of the states deciding to let the Feds do it. In other words, they were ill prepared for the worst.

Your author seems surprised that this could possibly have happened and was all an evil plot foisted on the Democrats by that seditious group calling themselves the Tea Party.

What she needs to understand is the law is the problem. It is an unworkable monolith that has been poorly planned, poorly written and, so far, poorly executed in the extreme.

Further, her blaming the October government shutdown for any part of it is childish and rather silly. I have already posted on this thread that it has taken this administration longer to get this leviathon public than it took the US to enter WWII, build up armaments and armies and help defeat the Nazi threat. But then, in 1942, more than one party and nearly all of the citizens supported the war effort.

Not so with Obamacare.

[Chicog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2497637/Three-20-year-old-programmers-build-working-Obamacare-website-just-days-government-do.html

While the Obamacare website still remains broken, three 20-year-old programmers have shown the government how it should be done.

Ning Liang, George Kalogeropoulos and Michael Wasser developed a site in matter of days - and it does things the expensive and faltering healthcare.gov can't do.

From a San Francisco office the men have built HealthSherpa.com, which presents the Affordable Health Care Act data in a much simpler way to the government website.

[Chicog]

Interesting shift in tactics from the GOP....

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/189775-gop-shifts-now-wants-to-fix-obamacare

[Jingthing]

Interesting shift in tactics from the GOP....

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/189775-gop-shifts-now-wants-to-fix-obamacare

I'll believe it when the tea party country governors participate in EXPANDED Medicaid!

[Baloo22]

The Obama demonizers didn't even WANT this to work in the first place! They are cheerleading for failure at the very least. In other words, these people are not to be taken seriously as their words and actions are not in the best interest of the American people, which would be for Obamacare to at least be HELPFUL. Nobody imagines it is the perfect solution of course.

By "Obama demonizers" you must mean those people who really do want to keep their current health insurance policies. The policies that THEY chose, that THEY want, and that THEY pay for. How dare they want to keep the policies that they already possess. They are the victims of Obama and his administration. How dare they believe the promise "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period! If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

I am a cheerleader for Obama to fail in his goal of forcing millions (current estimates of up to 52 million) of American citizens to suffer the cancellation of their health insurance policies. They are the victims of Obama's arrogance, dishonesty, and incompetence. Obama's goals of using his administration and federal power to inflict maximum damage upon the American people is not worthy of support. People who continue to support Obama should not be taken seriously as Obama's actions are not in the best interests of the American people.

[Baloo22]

After you submit your personal info to the Obamacare website, you might be in line for additional problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmEddTNWc_8&fmt=6

[samran]

*sigh* echochamber has restarted. You guys like the sound of your own voices don't you?

[Baloo22]

*sigh* echochamber has restarted. You guys like the sound of your own voices don't you?

*sigh* It's truly amazing that you do not see and fully realize the damage being done to the American people by Obama and his administration!