Free Markets, Free People


Are you ready for some “ObamaCare”!?

It is your wallet which is going to need “conditioning” for this “improved” health care system:

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

Of course you’ve seen the lies smoke that HHS has been putting out about how cost will be down, right?  By 16%.  But they never really tell you down from what, do they?

“Premiums nationwide will also be around 16 percent lower than originally expected,” HHS cheerfully announces in its press release. But that’s a ruse. HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect.

That’s right, they’ve apparently learned from Congress about “spending cuts”.  You know, when they spend less than they projected they’d spend but more than they did last year?  Yeah, “spending cuts”.

Instead, the travesty that is called ObamaCare will be adding on to everyone’s bill (to include those getting a subsidy).  Those below 40 get hammered.  And those at 40?  Not so good either:

The cheapest exchange plan for the average enrollee, compared to what a 40-year-old would pay today, will cost an average of 99 percent more for men, and 62 percent for women.

For this cohort, men fared worst in North Carolina, with rate increases of 305 percent. Women got hammered in Nebraska, where rates will increase by a national high of 237 percent. Again, Colorado and New Hampshire fared best, with 17 percent and 5-8 percent declines, respectively.

Remember that here, we aren’t conducting an exact comparison. Instead we’re comparing the lowest-cost bronze plan offered to the average participant in the exchanges, to the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds today. This approach artificially flatters Obamacare, because the median age of an exchange participant is, in most states, below the age of 40.

Nice.

I’ve always wondered how making everyone get insurance, subsidizing those who can’t “afford” it, and adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy could make health care “more affordable”. Common sense tells you it won’t.

Common sense is right.

… Again.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

91 Responses to Are you ready for some “ObamaCare”!?

  • Sounds like cherry picking.  The headline I’ve seen on most sites has been that Obamacare rates are lower than expected.  Here’s an example:  http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/obamacare-insurance-rates-will-be-less-expected/69847/

    • The headline I’ve seen on most sites has been that Obamacare rates are lower than expected.

      Did you actually say something about “cherry-picking”?
      ALLLLLL there are is estimates.  You do understand that term, right?
      No.
      You are just a lying Collectivist tool.
      I have opted out of ObamaDoggle.  Nothing will make me “opt in”.  Screw that.

  • So someone posting something about rates is a lying tool because they are just estimates.  Hmmm, given what the post was about, I am amused by your over the top effort to insult – you have some collateral damage!  I’m not really concerned about you opting in and out, I just want to end the barbaric practice (in my opinion) of us being the only advanced industrialized state that leaves people uninsured, has medical cost bankruptcies, and finds people avoiding care for financial reasons.  Even conservatives in every other industrialized state support health care – like police protection and other basics.  But hey, opt out – that’s fine with me!

    • One more time, health insurance is not health care. You can wave your health insurance card around your head all you want but if there are no providers willing to work for that price, all you are doing is fanning the air.

      • Most people I encounter who uncritically parrot Democrat talking points don’t understand that health “insurance” is not actual medical care.  Not only are people having more trouble obtaining full time jobs, paying much higher premiums, and facing the inevitable market consequences of central planning (less quality, more scarcity)…they still have to pay to see the doctor, have a lab test, buy medicine, etc..  And, the deductibles are increasing across the board.
        I try to have a conversation with such people but it’s utterly pointless.  They are extremely ignorant and misinformed, and they typically react emotionally, tossing out slogans about Big Pharma, evil Republicans, etc. while avoiding the pertinent facts.

        • Health insurance means access to health care for the poor, without risking all ones’ assetts or bankruptcy (which causes many people not to get care).  It’s assuring access.  No one ever said health insurance is the same as health care, any more than automobile insurance is the same as getting the car fixed after an accident.  But if you have auto insurance you’re more likely to be able to get your car fixed, and if you have health insurance, you’re more likely to get good health care when needed.

          • No.
            Getting medical INSURANCE is not the same as getting medical CARE.  Once you socialist bastards realize that I’m sure we’ll start importing high quality doctors from Cuban schools.

            See how those words are different Scott?   Insurance is a different word than care.   It’s how our language works.
            Insurance is not a synonym for care or a synonym for treatment.

            This is a fairly simple concept.   You have a PhD you say?   Are you sure?

          • Looker, who said health insurance was the same as getting medical care?  Sheesh.

          • Health insurance means access to health care for the poor…

            But then…

            Looker, who said health insurance was the same as getting medical care?

            So, while you did not say they were the SAME, you imply they are necessarily LINKED.
            That ALSO is a lie.  As Old Man and looker point out.
            I can have a cut-rate auto policy that does NOT assure I can get my car repaired or replaced for anything LIKE what the benefits it provides me.  If I have to travel to Mexico to find a repairman willing to do the work for the insurance proceeds, I would argue that my access to repairs is not “assured”.
            Wow.  You really are a moron.

          • thank you Rags.

            He just says whatever pops in to his head at the moment as if he hasn’t said anything prior to that.
             

          • Having the memory of a goose and the moral center of a warm glob of butter is a decided advantage to a Collectivist tool.
            He can slide all over the table, leaving a greasy trail.  But he’s hard to pick up without a spatula.

          • Health insurance means access to health care for the poor….

            No, it doesn’t.  It means that middle class people pay more money for less quantity and less quality so that poor people pay less.

            …without risking all ones’ assetts or bankruptcy (which causes many people not to get care).

            If I tried to buy a yacht, I’d risk my assets and probably end up in bankruptcy.  That causes me not to buy yachts.
            People who create goods (hospitals, equipment, supplies, medication) and services (doctors, nurses, techs, lab work) don’t work for free.  I don’t demand that everyone involved in building a yacht from the architect or engineer down to the painter, must strictly limit what they get paid and what they pay for parts so that the ship is affordable to me.

            It’s assuring access.

            Again, no, it isn’t.  In fact, when “insurance” is mandated (under threat of a fine) or more people get “free” coverage on the taxpayer, that means more of those people will make appointments to see the doctor or to get lab tests.  That means a greater scarcity.
            Meanwhile, the price controls mean that doctors, nurses, equipment manufacturers have a disincentive to do the same work they did before.  That can mean less quality.  Also, some will retire early, change careers or specialties, seek other opportunities not under the thumb of bureaucrats.  That means even more scarcity.
            And, that means longer waits for crappier care.

            No one ever said health insurance is the same as health care, any more than automobile insurance is the same as getting the car fixed after an accident.  But if you have auto insurance you’re more likely to be able to get your car fixed, and….

            Collision insurance only covers accidents, not alternators or head gaskets.  That’s like the difference between hospitalized due to a major injury versus having strep throat, catastrophic care versus routine illnesses.  Instead of being covered under auto insurance, a problem with the alternator or head gasket would be covered under warranty, if your car is new enough.  A warranty isn’t insurance.
            Then you get to the routine/scheduled maintenance, like oil changes and new tires.  That would be like immunizations and contraceptives.  Making such things “free” (no out-of-pocket expense) is not insurance, either.  It sure gets the votes, though, doesn’t it?

            …if you have health insurance, you’re more likely to get good health care when needed.

            Good?  On what do you base your assertion that care will be quality?

    • When you get out of junior high school you might just understand what INSURANCE really is.

    • “So someone posting something about rates is a lying tool because they are just estimates.”
      No, actually, you’re a lying tool when you give a crappy estimate the first time, and then you tell everyone that the costs are 16% lower without telling them the lower cost is based on a higher price they badly estimated the first time.
      And you leave them, by deliberate omission, to think that you were talking about a 16% reduction in their CURRENT oosts.
      THEN you’re a lying tool.
      Or, you’re the President of the United States.
      Those two are not mutually exclusive.

      “I’m not really concerned about you opting in and out, I just want to end the barbaric practice…….But hey, opt out – that’s fine with me!
      So, it’s barbaric not to have coverage, but we should opt out, presumably because we’re barbarians?
      You are a hypocritical little piece of work aren’t you.


      Here’s a special thought for you….we can pay the minimum fine, uh tax, and STILL get health care.
      And you
      Will pay
      For us.

      • No one said you were a barbarian.  I’m just not bothered by the choices you make for your own lives.  I respect people who make their own choices, and accept that there are consequences.

        • Except for your LOVE of all that is compulsory.
          Like ObamaDoggle, which is NOT INSURANCE, is NOT about health care, and IS a job-killing machine.
          You are such a lying tool.

        • “I’m just not bothered by the choices you make for your own lives.  I respect people who make their own choices, and accept that there are consequences.”
          EXACTLY our point.   But we mean it, and you don’t.
          No, you do think like Obama, you say whatever sounds good at the moment.

          You respect us making our own decisions, but you also expect us to pay the ‘fine’, uh, I mean ‘tax’ to support a system which we decide not to participate in.   Funny how all this respect you have is related to whether or not you can use government to put a gun to our heads, threaten our personal property and income and demand we pay even if we ‘opt out’.

          You, to put it directly, are a lying hypocrite Scott.

    • Scott (in the previous article): “I’d also say the government has too much power….

      Like I said, you always come down on the side of bigger government, more government control.
      The premises underlying your phrase “leaves people uninsured” are an attempt at inverting reality.  Taking the analogy of car insurance, what is called medical “insurance” is more like collision insurance, a lifelong warranty for mechanical failures (not due to collision), and a discount club membership for routine maintenance.  Calling it “insurance” is the first error (to be charitable).
      You speak of “barbari[sm]” because people have a choice–well, except for FICA, EMTALA, prohibitions on interstate health “insurance” sales, health “insurance” mandates (a la Sandra Fluke), the de facto pricing of insured services to match Medicare tables, etc..  And yet, you’re trumpeting ObamaCare (a/k/a the Unaffordable Care Act) which will further limit choices, drive doctors to retire, drive medical students to change career paths, increase wait times due to the smaller number of doctors and other staff, decrease quality of care for similar reasons, drive up costs for businesses, prohibit “Cadillac plans” (i.e., low premium, high deductible), punish young and healthy people who choose not to have insurance, etc..
      You are not for smaller government.  You are not for more individual choices.  You’re a collectivist and a liar.
      From a PJmedia article, using Obama’s own ObamaCare calculator:

      If [a married couple] have identical earnings totaling $65,000, which will usually net down to $50,000 or below after all income and payroll taxes, their Obamacare exchange Silver Plan premium next year with the same earnings will be $16,382, or about one-third of what used to be their take-home pay.

      But putting all of that sort of thing aside, if you want to actually claim to be for smaller, more accountable government, will you now condemn Obama and the Democrats for giving Congress and their staff special exceptions, giving their cronies special exceptions, delaying implementation on parts which could politically damage them in an election, etc.?  Or, do you think they are deft and wise and that you so enjoy the taste of their boots that you don’t mind them treating you as a second-class citizen?

      • If I had my way we’d have a German like system (supported by German conservatives almost wholly) that didn’t allow profit for insurers and yet used incentives and other means to keep costs down and have full coverage.  The French and Swiss system also have good models (I don’t like the British single payer system though).  I’ve compared these pragmatically, not deluded by ideology, looking at what provides the best coverage at the lowest cost, and assures the poor do not go without.  There are real facts out there on this, there is no need for ideological grandstanding.
        I would dramatically cut government if given the chance.  Give me dictatorial powers, and the budget would be slashed, as would taxes.  I’d restructure social welfare programs.  Military spending would be slashed, and bureaucratic power would be decentralized to states.  But keep saying that you know what I think – that’s the only way you can do this Elliot.  Pretend you know what I think and argue against your imagination.   Whatever gets you through the night.

        • What you mean, professor liar, is to say whatever you think sounds good.

        • So, even though we’re not getting the German system you prefer….we’re getting ‘something’.

          and of course ‘something’ whatever it is, is determined by you, to be better than what we had…
          Because….you…..what….

          ….you….KNOW?

          Can you prove it?   On another thread you can’t say ‘slavery is wrong’ is a universal truth because you can’t prove it….
          But here, even though you really have no clue other than what you’ve been told by a collection of provenly serial liars about Obamacare, you KNOW it’s better, and going to be better, than what we have….because….

          you….can…..prove it?

        • …didn’t allow profit for insurers and yet used incentives and other means to keep costs down and have full coverage.

          (1) Profit is bad.
          (2) Central planners are wise enough to create “incentives and other means” which work efficiently, and which replace profit as a motive.

          assures the poor do not go without.

          (3) It is bad if poor don’t have health insurance.

          I’ve compared these pragmatically, not deluded by ideology…. There are real facts out there on this, there is no need for ideological grandstanding.

          Because (1), (2), and (3) above are not ideological values.  People who don’t share those values are the icky ideologues.  Not you.

          I would dramatically cut government if given the chance.  Give me dictatorial powers, and the budget would be slashed, as would taxes.  I’d restructure social welfare programs.  Military spending would be slashed, and bureaucratic power would be decentralized to states.

          And yet, all you ever do is attack anyone who advocates such changes, rallying to the party which pushes to do the exact opposite.  Barack Obama is a deft, heroic figure, who will go down in history as one of the best presidents, even though he has worked against each of your expressed goals more than nearly all of his predecessors.  The “tea party” types who call for smaller government, budget cuts, tax cuts, etc., on the other hands, are “silly”, “deranged”, “delusional”, “crazy”, “extremists”, etc..
          Again, you’re weaving around, slurring your words, and boasting about what a sober teetotaler you’ve always been.

    • “I just want to end the barbaric practice (in my opinion) of us being the only advanced industrialized state that leaves people uninsured, has medical cost bankruptcies, and finds people avoiding care for financial reasons.  Even conservatives in every other industrialized state support health care – like police protection and other basics.”

      So much fail, so little time.
      “…us being the only advanced industrialized state that leaves people uninsured…”  Once again, the “All the COOL countries are doing it!”  argument. Fail.  That’s simply a version of the “Bush did it too/first!” argument, which can be rephrased as “He screwed up, so it’s OK if I do.”

      “…as medical cost bankruptcies…”  Isn’t it HORRIBLE that services have costs?  They don’t go away when you rob taxpayers to pay for them.  You want to get government involved in healthcare?  How about requiring everyone to carry insurance against medical bankruptcies DIRECTLY instead?

      “…people avoiding care for financial reasons.”  Isn’t it HORRIBLE that services have costs?

      “Even conservatives in every other industrialized state support health care – like police protection and other basics.”  Being conservative in other countries is not  the same as being conservative here.  Same applies to being a liberal.  So, police services – which impact the way we deal with others – is the same as health care – which concerns ourselves?

      Yes, medical bankruptcies and avoiding care are bad, but don’t even think of trying to attempt to tell me that O-care is the only, best, or most practical solution to things like that.
       

      • Being conservative in other countries is not  the same as being conservative here.  Same applies to being a liberal.  So, police services – which impact the way we deal with others – is the same as health care – which concerns ourselves?

        Considering how police “services” in the US have devolved into resembling enemy occupation rather than protecting good people from bad people, I can’t understand how people so stupidly think that getting the government more involved in how people pay for medical services will not turn medical care in the US into a similar nightmare of rationed care, dwindling quality, widespread scarcity, exploding costs, exploding taxes, death panels, etc..
        They’re ignoring history (and current events) and are dooming us to repeat the same trajectories towards failure.

      • Watch the end result being in sharp contrast to the promises, as well as to the excuses offered for passing the monstrosity in the first place.  There are people who lack insurance (though, we’ll just ignore the young healthy people who could afford insurance but who choose not to buy it because they’d rather have new cars, new cell phones, new game consoles, and eat out 5 times a week).  There are people who have difficulty getting coverage due to pre-existing conditions.  There are sob stories of people facing difficulties despite having insurance.  There are people who get sick or injured who have huge bills.
        Why is it that the problems of a small percent of the populace require that everyone (except Congress, their staff, unions, and certain cronies) has have all of their most personal information tracked, now becomes subject to IRS blackmail to comply with central planner mandates, etc.?  If you put a gun to my head and insist that there must be a government program to address these problems, the most obvious solution is to just outright pay some of the costs for small percentage of people who have these problems.  Leave everyone else the fluck alone.
        But no.  The goal is not to solve the aforementioned problems.  The goal is to grow the size and influence of government, to give them the power to replace our own moral judgment with their own whims, or their own self-serving cronyism.  And, they want your data.  “All your medical records are belong to us.”
        Given the revelations of the NSA, IRS, and other disgusting examples of abuse of power, allowing these people access to our most personal information is going to cause all sorts of new abuses.  The unintended consequences–well, and probably some secret intended consequences–will make Americans look back and lament.

      • Our system is simply a bad system.  It costs a massive amount of money, left 50 million uncovered, had outcomes worse than in most other industrialized states, and some eyars 60% of our bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, while in other countries the idea that medical expenses would cause bankruptcy is seen as horrific.  So I say we create a system that costs less, gives good outcomes, avoids financial ruin due to medical issues and covers everyone.  Seems like a win-win-win, unless you’re blinded by ideology.

        • “60% of our bankruptcies are caused by medical costs”
          Completely false.  Those stats are inflated by adding-in BK’s that are due to inability to work (ie: disabilities). You have been played.

        • …had outcomes worse than in most other industrialized states…

          Pure Collectivist lies.  You are just a remarkably mechanical repeater of Collectivist bullshit.
          Did you know the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg really were Soviet spies…???

        • “So I say we create a system that costs less, gives good outcomes, avoids financial ruin due to medical issues and covers everyone.”

          Fine idea.  Instead, we got Obamacare, which is not and will not be any of these.

          Do you have a point?

    • 1. This is NOT insurance
      2. This is NOT about “health care”.  It IS about CONTROL.
      3. I DO bankruptcy.  I have NEVER done a “medical bankruptcy”.

      • It is about control, but also has the intended effect of convincing people they need to elect Democrats to keep their medical care coming. I.e., it is also about securing votes.

      • To me it is about health care access and costs that in this country have gone out of control, with results that do not warrant those costs (results below other countries).   Logic lesson:  Someone says “I am a baker.  I have never baked ginger bread cookies.  Therefore, ginger bread cookies do not exist.”  Your point three is along those lines.

        • “Insurance” is a system, Erp.  It involves spreading risk out over a population of people who care to join the system VOLUNTARILY.
          It is a form of VOLUNTARY socialism (a means to spread the harshness of the verities of life), as opposed to STATE socialism, which is always compulsory.
          BECAUSE the people in an insurance system are NOT joined to it by compulsory means, it is possible for the INSURER to ascribe COSTS to the members of the pool of risk, according to their characteristics.
          When EVERY-FLUCKING-BODY is COMPELLED to be part of the risk pool, there is no attempt to ascribe costs to risks posed by the individual.
          It CEASES to bear ANY semblance to INSURANCE, because it is NOT insurance.
          You moron.

          There were numerous projections about what these exchanges — which, by the way, did not exist before, including the multitude of plans that will not be available to consumers that did not, that were not in place before. So, obviously, this is not an apples-to-apples. It’s a, you know, apple full of worms compared to an apple that’s fresh and delicious…
          Jay Carney, Paid Liar

          You can stick your ginger-bread cookies sideways up your ass.

        • “I am a baker.  I have never had anybody ask to buy shit cookies.  I conclude that the demand for sit cookies I keep hearing about is a lie.”
          Happy to correct what you mistake for “logic”.

          • I don’t believe anything you say about yourself or what you do.  You are afraid to put your real name on your words and take responsibility.  You can make up anything.

          • How do we know you’re Scott Erb the professor?  How do we know you’re not Scott Erb the convicted drug felon?

          • People can gauge the verity of what I say by my what I say, Erp.
            You are a demonstrated liar and poseur.
            I am exactly who I claim to be, which is little enough.

          • No one care what you believe, Erb, and no one cares about these long-debunked 2009 talking points.

        • Speaking of out of control costs….so Congress and their minions need to be exempt from paying this on their own, and WE must subsidize them, because we might have a ‘brain drain’ if they have to cover some of their own insurance….wah……

          Whereas if we suffer a drain from doctors, nurses, etc, leaving the profession because of the new laws…well, tough titties, let the filthy greedy bastards leave.

          I see.

          • Well, looker, they ARE the new baronial class, and we ARE the new serfs.
            What were you thinking, prole…???

        • Yes, costs are too high.  I wonder when that started to happen?  Oh, yes.  In the late 60′s, just after the enactment of two little programs called Medicare and Medicaid.  So your train of logic is “A. Government involvement in health care delivery is increasing.  B. Costs are rising faster than general inflation.  Therefore, C. More government involvement will REDUCE costs.”

          You fail.

          • That is an excellent point. I first saw it in a Reason Magazine article back in the 1990s, and I’ve never seen any advocate of government-run or government-funded healthcare with a coherent response to it.
             

          • And I know of NO model where government provided any economic good AS efficiently as the market would and can.
            Where we have a NECESSARY (under the Constitution) activity of government…like defense…NOBODY would argue that even that is provided most efficiently.  It is just necessary.

    • You do know that Obamacare advocates even now admit that there will still be uninsured people.
      Also, with the amount of people they put on Medicaid, hold your breath on actual care.

      • Oh, YEAH, and not a few uninsured…tens of millions of uninsured STILL uninsured.
        And remember when tens of thousands of Americans were GONNA DIE if we didn’t do something RIGHT NOW…?!?!
        How many has Obama killed with his delays…???

  • Erb wants death panels.

    • Yes, he wants to start the barbaric practice of denying medical care to premature babies and the elderly as practiced in those vaunted “other industrialized nations.”

    • Death panels?  *shakes head and rolls eyes*

      • When you remove the market FORCES that control demand, all you will have is a system of RATIONING.
        You are either a liar or moron…or a lying moron.

        • Silly Rags, the market rations too – so if the market is favoring the wealthy and keeping out the poor, the market is the ultimate death panel!

          • You don’t seem to know what the word “panel” means.

          • No, liar.
            Words mean things.  “Rationing” is something done by an authority.  Look.  It.  Up.
            “Decisions” are something provided by markets.  WE make them, according to our CHOICES, and our means and our values.  See “consequences” above.
            Silly liar.

          • …the market is the ultimate death panel!

            Nobody is “kept out” of our miraculous health care system.
            Ever hear of the Shiner’s Hospitals, you lying moron?  Just ONE of many examples.
            See, in a thriving capitalist system, we recognize the virtues of VOLUNTARILY helping each other, and the funds are available as surplus to our needs to allow us to do that.
            In my little rural area, I constantly see fund-raisers to help pay for the cost of someone’s…a complete stranger…medical expenses.  And people and merchants of very limited means help.
            Imagine…

          • Having had 1 son who was at least reviewed by Scottish Rite here in Dallas many years ago I can attest to the miracles of that voluntary system.

            I’m not a Mason, have none in the family, so it’s not exclusive.  It’s people who give a crap, doing miracles, without the government getting involved.

            and if you’re EVER having a day when you think your life is crap, go sit in the lobby area of Scottish Rite and watch some of those kids come through. The kids you see….if you don’t walk out of there realizing your life DOESN’T really suck after all, you’ve either got it genuinely bad or you are a pretty self absorbed individual.

            Truly a place where the Persian proverb “I complained that I had no shoes until…” will REALLY apply.

          • My friend and former paralegal is a high Mason and Shriner.
            He told me once what the funding committed to a new hospital was.
            I cannot recall for sure, but it was an IMMENSE value, and they pay it into a trust, so it isn’t just a promise of future payment.

          • Scottish Rite is fantastic.   The things I saw there, incredible.   And there’s nothing ‘cheap’ about the facility and you don’t get the feeling you’re talking to people who weren’t damn near, or at, the top of their class.

            And I don’t once recall money or cost being discussed.

          • Correct.
            And that awful libertarian monster, Rand Paul, who HATES the poor…
            He spends his recess time from the Senate doing pro bono ophthalmic operations on the poor of his state.
            What a hater…

          • The poor have Medicaid. But since your side can’t actually make Medicaid work well, you have decided to come up with new programs.
            The number of times I had to intervene when lefties were all up in their wailing about poor people, unemployed people, not having any safety net like in Europe.
            WE DO HAVE A SOCIAL SAFETY NET. Stop claiming we do not.

          • The market has within it self-correcting and signalling mechanisms that are incredibly useful.
            For example if steel goes up, people automatically switch to cheaper substitutes, design ways to use less, find new sources, innovates around, or simply pay the increase if its the best deal for them.
            This entire process is how we now have $500 cell phones from $10,000 cell phones of only 3 decades ago.
            Central planning lacks this ability, and that should worry anyone about Obamacare.

             

          • You don’t seem to know what the word “panel” means.

            It’s the “free market panel”, where the Illuminati meet and discuss how to operate the magic hand to kill puppies and make kids in the ghetto go hungry.
            Missed you at the last meeting.

          • …the market is the ultimate death panel

            >>>> Did this stupid schmuck really just say that?

      • We already have it — it’s the IPAB.  *shakes head and rolls eyes*

      • Yeah, death panels.   You might want to read up on how they work under NHS in the UK.

        • Silly Scotty seems to be just too boneheaded to realize that if you are put on a waiting list then someone (or some people, ie a panel) had to decide that you belonged on that list behind certain other people. In other words, a panel decides who will get treatment and in what order. If you happen to die of your condition while on the waiting list, then that death was of course proximately caused by that panel. The fact that the people on the panel assessing the relative merits of each case do not call themselves “ajudicators of death” or “God’s speeding hand” does not mean that they are explicitly judging that someone’s age, history or well-being in relation to others. In other words, deciding who has more right to treatment.

          Silly Scotty also seems to deny that waiting lists like this exist in all socialized health care systems. Some worse than others, but they exist in all. Which is why if you live in such a system, you buy private health insurance if you can to ensure you and your immediate family has a better chance of quick treatment (obviously taxes aren’t high enough if people are willing to pay twice to ensure they can get their kids treatment quickly. They are also clearly selfish asshats who will not sit quietly in the state-decided waiting list). Unless of course you live in a system which also bans private health care alongside the socialized system. In which case you might consider taking medical vacations to India, Poland or somewhere else that provides good care for those who pay… again, if you can afford it. Mind you, it is mostly just the old, the poor and the clueless who suffer in these systems so not much changes apart from the government getting more control over everyday information about the proles.

          Silly Scotty. Always denying reality if he can get to make up the meaning of words. This will no doubt continue until the unfortunate day he or one of his loved ones experiences the cold hand of a caring social medical system and his private health insurance has lapsed or been removed.

          • Silly DocD doesn’t realize that there are waiting lists now, and people who can’t afford care and thus don’t get it.  You also are making up your “waiting list” in vague, abstract terms which has nothing to do with what we have.  You’re simply making it up.  I’ve studied comparative health care systems and given public talks on the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches.  I think you’re talking out of some body part far distant from your head ;-)

          • WHY are there “waiting lists” now, Erp?
            WHERE?
            There is nothing “vague” or “abstract” about rationing being the only means of controlling demand when you strip market forces out of a market.
            I thought “insulting” someone on the interwebs was unconvincing, or something…
            And now, you’re reduced to pitiable chest-thumping.
            The magenta caterpillars must be thick on the walls this morning…!!!

          • Silly Scotty. Shouldn’t you be off deleting comments? Maybe your lack of reading comprehension mislead you into thinking I was talking about the USA. I was talking about places that actually have waiting lists on their public health systems. Like the UK, Sweden, Australia, Spain, etc etc. Perhaps if you had direct experience of health care in one of these countries, or had an aged family member sitting in pain on a waiting list for surgery, you might understand. But as clearly demonstrated, your supposed expertize extends about as far impressing local students to give it up.

          • Just as a specific example. Under the Swedish “healthcare guarantee” (http://www.vardguiden.se/Sa-funkar-det/Lagar–rattigheter/Vardgaranti/)…

            On first making contact with the health system, you SHOULD be seen by a general practitioner withing 5 days.
            If you are lucky enough to get an appointment in 5 days, you SHOULD be referred to a specialist within 30 days of that referral.
            If you are lucky enough to get a referral within those 30 days, you SHOULD receive treatment within 90 days of that decision.

            I say “lucky enough” because many people do not get treated within this time (total of 125 days) and end up looking for another referral… and starting the process over again. It is not uncommon at all, specially for the elderly or those living away from one of the larger cities. Some people die in the wait, since this applies to all medical procedures. On the other hand, if you have private healthcare, you can get booked for treatment for most procedures within a week. And this is Sweden, which is better than, say, the UK.

  • The fundamental problem with our pre-Obama health care system was the lack of price competition at point of service. This is due to a system which encourages via the tax code employeer provided health insurance.

    Healthcare shouldn’t be paid via insurance. It should be payed out of pocket, with exceptions to long term or catastrophic care. The key element to reforming our system is reforming the tax code and also reforming outright socialized medical care like medicaid and medicare. Along with that we should enact tort reform (so scum like John Edwards can’t get rich via legal theft), and reform the FDA.

    • Exactly. With more doctors leaving the insurance-based care now and in the coming years,expect to see a big surge in concierge and pay-for-service care.

      • Medical vacations, too.
        Kuhlifornia has already started to push medical care down into lower-qualified sectors of healthcare providers.
        When you impose price controls, one thing you get is creative ways to avoid the controls…and a general decline in the quality of the goods offered to most consumers.
        Duh.

      • Exactly. With more doctors leaving the insurance-based care now and in the coming years,expect to see a big surge in concierge and pay-for-service care.

        >>> And expect to see those docs become demonized and the next boogeyman for the left to go after.

  • “Medical bankruptcy” is still a completely VOLUNTARY option, to the extent it is used.
    The person…or their family…ELECTED to get whatever care they got.
    Then, they ELECTED to pass into bankruptcy as a means to mitigate their liabilities.  One does NOT generally lose a home, cars, or many possessions in bankruptcy.  You only lose assets surplus to the exemptions.
    Under ObamaDoggle, you will NOT be provided choices, and you WILL lose everything to the IRS when you cannot pay for your care.  They are the only people in the world who can take everything without exemptions, including your homestead.

    • Innocent until proven guilty?   The founders hadn’t met the IRS.

      • The founders would be horrified by the IRS and the mob-ocracy in general. If they were to witness the casting-down of civilization today, they’ve have retained some form of monarchy.

    • The government-guaranteed student loans are also bankruptcy proof.  It’s why banks will loan any doofus a briefcase full of cash to spend seven years to get a degree in Medieval French literature, after which they will alternate between being unemployed and working at Starbucks.  If they actually had to assess the risk that doofus would default, then banks and prospective students (and their parents) would have to make a choice whether a given person would go to college and how they planned to parlay that into productive income.

  • On “opting out”…
    Now it is possible that many in the MSM do not understand this point. But the two “wonks” writing today have no excuse. Eighteen months ago the original MSM “wonk”, Ezra Klein, let the cat out of the bag by openly revealing that the mandate is unenforceable:

    …the Affordable Care Act doesn’t include an actual enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate. If you refuse to pay it, the Internal Revenue Service can’t throw you in jail, dock your wages or really do anything at all. This leads to one of the secrets of Obamacare: Perhaps the best deal in the bill is to pay the mandate penalty year after year and only buy insurance once you get sick. To knowingly free ride, in other words. In that world, the mandate acts as an option to buy insurance at a low price when you need it.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/how-liberal-media-obfuscate-obamacares-individual-mandate.php
    Note that PowerLine is a blog by a bunch of law professors.  In real universities.  NOT in Maine.
    But ALSO NOTE: I don’t give a flying fig.  As a matter of civil disobedience, I will not comply with any ObamaDoggle provision.  Think Prohibition.  I simply refuse.

  • And let’s talk taxes -
    the medical deduction increases from 7.5% to 10%.
    A 2.3% tax on gross sales of medical devices, profit or not.
    Cap of $2500 on the personal medical savings accounts contributions, don’t plan BIG operations kids.
    insurance ‘tax’ (thankyou you supreme court ditz) for non-compliance.
    Tax on health insurers (but I’m sure they’ll just cut their profits and absorb that and won’t bump premiums….because….Obama)

    • Right.  There should be special magic monkeys that the moonponys bring in from rainbow land to perform medical magic on people who are hurt or sick.
      Or slaves.
      OR, people should publicize stories like this one, so that people can help pay the people who provided the care, and buy the goods that OTHER people brought to the aide of this person BECAUSE they were incentivized by the PROFIT MOTIVE.

    • Why not?

    • YOU read it, right?
      did you see there in the very first paragraph what they did?   “Cost of an artificial leg?  More than $50,000 for the most high-tech models.”
      Let’s shift that to cars, bought by kids who work at McDonalds.
      Cost of a used car….$9,000?….but what the hell, let’s pretend everyone gets to have the Lamborghini Aventador – price $376,000.   Now on with our argument….
      “How is a kid at McDonald’s supposed to afford a $376,000 car!  It’s outrageous what these car companies are charging!  How are these kids supposed to get to work!!!????”

      So, back to the real point – FOR THE MOST HIGH TECH MODELS.   Where in the Constitution does it say that someone getting a prosthetic has to get the most high-tech model?   Is that in the Penumbra?
      They are already pulling disingenuous crap in the FIRST PARAGRAPH.

      Now for the rest of the story….
      $23 MILLION dollars?  In donations….NOT counting the health insurance?     Are you out of your flucking mind?
      Oh….but will it be enough?….oh, oh, oh.   Well hell, there’s no danger of waste THERE is there…nopey nope.

      and FINALLY…WHAT The hell are you talking about – WHAT shouldn’t happen?   Did you READ the flucking article?
      Massachusetts health coverage will pay for most of it…says so….in the article…. and
      “The donations will help make sure “that finances are not part of the burden” she has to bear, Hart said.”

      What is it you think shouldn’t happen Scott?  It says donations are making it possible for these people to get help without them being burdened with the bills.

      So these people what, shouldn’t be eligible for donations?

      Do you see what an asshat you are yet?


       

    • Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, another big insurer, is changing its policy and will pay for some of the more expensive bionic limbs when there is a demonstrated need, said Dr. Michael Sherman, chief medical officer. He said that 15 blast survivors admitted to hospitals are Harvard Pilgrim customers and that the insurance company is discussing “whether we might absorb some of the copays and deductibles.”
      “This is a terrorist act, and our only thought here is about providing support,” he said.
      The 26 hospitals that have treated bombing victims have charity funds that will cover some of the costs, said Tim Gens, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Hospital Association. Some injured residents may be eligible for Massachusetts’ public health funds for the uninsured or underinsured. People with huge medical bills they can’t afford are eligible, regardless of income.

      Was this what Erp had his hair on fire over…???
      DAMN those heartless insurance companies and greedy hospitals…!!!

      • “DAMN those heartless insurance companies and greedy hospitals…!!!”
        Not to mention those bastards who give money to help people in need!   Bastids…sorry, the correct pronunciation in Boston is bastids, probably said as “damn bastids”.

        $23 million in corporate and private donations.

        Say it with me children…Twenty Three Million in voluntary contributions from people and companies.

        but now we’ll GET that money, yes we will.  It will be collected according to the wishes of our savior Barack, and he’ll send his angels from the IRS around to
        hold people by their ankles and shake them over the cash hopper to empty their pockets.
        Oh Praise Obama!  Praise him children!   He WILL make them see the light and repent their greedy grasping ways!

    • Yeah, maybe you could start a charity to pay for their care…oh wait, nothing can be done without the State. I forgot.

  • By the way everyone, I just want to calm you all and assauge all of your fears: No matter HOW bad the level of care offered by Barackycare is, feel comforted knowing our elected officials will continue to have superior special healthcare, as will various corporations, industries and union cronies lucky enough to be granted waivers. So what’s all the fuss about, proles?

  • They told me if I voted for Romney, Big Bird would be stripped of his health insurance coverage…
    http://nakeddc.com/2013/09/26/barack-obama-just-discontinued-big-birds-health-insurance/
    h/t InstaPundit

  • http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359591/obama-targets-fox-news-gop-obamacare-glitches-andrew-johnson
    Mr. “The MOST Bipartisan President EVAH”
    Note that Ted Cruz never attacked anyone at all in 20+ hours of his speech.