It seems things may not be going according to the Democrats' plan: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575312610438320480.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10971283 Survey: Individual Health Insurance Premiums Jump Kaiser foundation survey finds steep jump in individual health insurance premiums By TOM MURPHY The Associated Press INDIANAPOLIS People who buy their own health insurance have been hit lately with premium hikes that far exceed increases in premiums for employer-sponsored coverage, according to a new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The nonprofit foundation, which is separate from health insurer Kaiser Permanente, said recent premium hikes requested by insurers for individual coverage averaged 20 percent. Some customers were able to switch plans and pay less, so people paying on their own actually wound up paying 13 percent more on average. That tops last year's average 5 percent annual increase for employer-sponsored family coverage and almost unchanged premiums for employer-sponsored single coverage, though foundation Vice President Gary Claxton said the comparisons come with qualifications. The individual insurance survey asked respondents for their most recent premium increases, and those can happen more or less frequently than the annual increases mostly seen in the group market, he noted. In the online poll, Kaiser queried 1,038 randomly selected people who pay for their own coverage. Individual health insurance premiums generally rise faster than group coverage rates. They can be affected by variables like a person's age. They also can be affected by rising medical and drug costs and are more vulnerable when a bad economy makes healthy people drop coverage. That can leave an insurer with a higher concentration of sick people who keep coverage because they need it more and thus generate more claims. The market also appears to be cyclical, with a big increase following a couple years of smaller ones, said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and former insurance executive who wasn't involved with the Kaiser study. But even with a sizable average increase, individual premiums still span a wide range from no increases to huge hikes. "There is no real consistency," Laszewski said. Guy Gooding of Sobieski, Wis., who is 59, said premiums for his and his wife's health coverage have risen 73 percent from 2007. They now pay about $646 per month, compared with $374 in 2007. He said he has kept up with the increases because he doesn't want to sacrifice the quality of his coverage. But he'd like more of an explanation from his insurer, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. "They're very vague on why the increases have been as much as they have been," he said. Insurers drew heavy criticism earlier this year after requesting premium increases of 20 percent or more from their individual customers in several different markets. Analysts who follow the insurance industry say reports of those increases helped re-ignite the health care reform debate. Congress then passed in March a reform bill that aims to offer health coverage to millions of uninsured people and help people buy individual coverage through exchanges that will be launched in 2014. About 14 million Americans under age 65 receive health insurance through the non-group or individual market, according to the foundation. In contrast, about 157 million U.S. residents get their coverage through an employer. Kaiser conducted the survey in March and April. The results had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. ——— Online: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8077.cfm
What a surprise. The 18-29 year-olds that will be on the take aren't overly opposed to a free handout.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...352860425050800.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion I wonder which procedures Dr. Berwick would be willing to have rationed from himself and his family?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/obamacare-the-sum-of-all-fears A brutal summation of all the lies told about this bill.
I think this video is the highlight of your article: [video=youtube;zPxMZ1WdINs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded[/video]
And here we go... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405203894857436.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Drug and medical care development is going to take a hit. What will happen to other countries who have been relying on us to do all of the research and development while they drifted by with their "free" healthcare?
Here is Ann Althouse's comment on it (like MikeDC, I read her blog as well) http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/08/so-here-we-have-government-anointed.html
This legislation is so ill-considered on so many levels. Not understanding that this legislation will change the behavior of for profit companies is one of them.
You people are too stupid to understand what's good for you. It's time for a little "reeducation". http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sebelius-administration-has-lot-reeducation-do-obamacare This is fucking Orwellian.
That video uses a tactic that I am curious about. I have seen this from the government before, they have 12 people read the same thing and then edit it together so you only hear a bit or two per person. Then they edit it together like this. This way you must be more likely to swallow the bullshit they are sending you because MULTIPLE PEOPLE TOLD ME SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just wonder who came up with that technique. My favorite new analogy for this healthcare disaster is this. If they applied this idea to McDonalds, you could get a Big Mac for 20 cents with a free drink and it would be healthier for you and the employees of the McDonalds would all make 100 grand a year. Just doesn't sound plausible to me. Maybe if they showed a video of 23 people telling me that it was true, I would buy it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092006665.html Don't think this strategy by the Administration isn't intentional. Make the business of health care impossible to make a profit or even to break even and then the government "has" to intervene. Expect this strategy to reoccur bit by bit until the government "has" to provide health care for everyone, because the "evil" insurance companies just won't provide the health insurance we need. One more question: If insurance companies can't afford to provide coverage for all of these services, when they're all gone, how will costs lower or even stay the same when the population essentially self-insures by having the government run the system? I know the answer; let's see if anyone else gets it.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...se-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html An article with a few of the "highlights" of the bill. This bill will go down as one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated on the American people.
Can somebody explain how this is GOOD for the country? Can somebody explain why we couldn't just provide $1000 / year catastrophic coverage to the 30 million uninsured ($30billion / year total cost), and still be much cheaper than this atrocious bill?
I think I will stop paying for my insurance and decrease the amount they take out of my check for income taxes if that is still allowed and tell the govt to fuck right off if they want to keep my 300 dollar tax refund. They can stick it up their collective asses.
I am not about to read this prolonged thread. Looking at this Page No. 14 (didn't read it), it appears conservatives are talking to themselves. I would guess the thread preaches to the choir and doesn't change anyone's mind. But I read this article today so I'll throw it in. It says that most of the dislike of the bill comes from the left, not the right. 40% want the bill to create more government involvement in health care than it does, and only 20% want it to do less. And this was a phone poll, which means the millions who don't have a phone are unrepresented--those too poor to have one, and itinerants who move around to find work. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-09-25-15-04-14 The article and this thread have nothing to do with the following point, but--Similarly, Obama's decrease in general (not just health care) support has come from the Left. The Right already polled against him, no change there. But the Right pretends the reason is that he's too far left. Actually it's because he's too far right.
I think the problem is that this shouldn't be an "insurance" issue. The parts that I didn't like were that a pretty horribly written and conceived bill was pushed through only after bribing some senators to vote for it, either lying about or dismissing costs to taxpayers and misrepresenting what the bill would actually do. The fact that a bill that 65% of the country is against (for whatever reason) got pushed through doesn't strike a chord with anyone here? Getting an MRI in, say, France costs almost 4x less than it does in the Seattle area. What does insurance of any type do about that? Vaccinations that we're giving (through places like International Red Cross, Doctors without borders, etc) to African children cost significantly less than the ones I take my 6month-old daughter in to get. That isn't an insurance issue. People not having the money to pay those costs is the issue. Those who grasp at quick-fix government-based "solutions" that sound good to Johnny-on-the-street aren't solving the problem (see, Social Security), and are actually impeding things that would actually help people get quality, affordable health care.
