CBO says Obamacare Increases Healthcare premiums State, National, International, posted by Pleasanton Mom, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm
An Inconvenient Truth: Obamacare Would Make Ms. Canfield’s Health Insurance Even More Expensive
Monday, March 15, 2010
Americans rightly believe the goal of any health care reform bill should be make health insurance more affordable. This would certainly help Ms. Natoma Canfield, whose experience was discussed by President Obama in his visit to Ohio today.
The problem, which has been widely reported, is that Obamacare will not reduce the cost of health insurance premiums. Instead, according to the independent and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, people like Ms. Canfield, who buy coverage on their own, would expect to see an average premium increase of 10 to 13 percent, under the bill soon to be voted on by the House.
This means that if Obamacare were fully implemented this year, Ms. Canfield’s health insurance premiums, which are nearly $8,500 this year, could cost up to $9,600, $1,100 more than if Congress did nothing. Alternatively, if the House Republican health reform bill were fully implemented, Ms. Canfield could save nearly $1,800 this year compared to Obamacare.
This is the exact reason the $1 trillion Obamacare bill needs to be sent back to the drawing board. The White House and Congressional Democrats need to start over and focus on commonsense reforms that make health coverage more affordable.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Here is a well-rounded, non-biased explanation of the actual impact on individual premiums. Note the part about how the percentage of people who see a rise in premiums will also actually receive better insurance, not the increased premium for decreased service situation that we see currently taking place in the absence of reform.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2010 at 2:23 pm
We have been doing that Stacey, we all pay into Medicare, it is deducted from every paycheck throughout your entire life (gross earnings X 1.45%). That has been badly mishandled by our federal government.
Now they lie to us and tell us that HCR will bend the cost curve down. They do nothing to deal with the underlying problem. We will still have Medicare taken out of our checks, and new taxes are added with HCR.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm
"Alexander insists the cost of premiums in the individual market will go up, without acknowledging that that's because most people will be getting better insurance coverage, either because of new government-mandated minimum coverage levels or because many will decide that subsidies will make upgrades to a better plan more cost-effective. Bottom line, people won't be paying more for the same thing. They'll be paying more for better plans. And on top of that, many will get federal subsidies, so they won't be paying the increased cost out of their own pockets."
Taking the age factor out of the equation, the argument applies to everyone who remains uninsured. We already have socialized medicine - people with insurance are paying higher premiums to cover treatment for those without insurance. HCR cleans it up, provides access to preventative care, and adjusts the burden appropriately. Even if you want to focus on a possible increase in cost, it's tied to an increase in services - the opposite of the current situation.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I guess you can take the word truth off the end of your handle
a possible increase in cost - a distortion at best, a total lie at worst
Yes, people with insurance are paying higher premiums to cover treatment for those without insurance. I am one of those people. And the people who are paying don't want government-mandated minimum coverage levels.
With minimum coverage levels come maximum coverage levels, and we who are paying don't want the government to decide what those are.
When we started this HCR debate, 85% of the American people had health insurance, and 95% of the 85% were happy with it, why do we need to change health insurance rules for everyone to supply a relatively small group of people with insurance?
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Gee Jim, snitty much?
Okay, how about this? I'll completely ignore the scenarios provided by the CBO that indicate potential reduction in premium costs (ignoring the equally relevant facts, you're familiar with that, right?), and present the argument that health care premiums are going up one way or the other - with HCR under a streamlined system that increases services and brings efficiency to the market, or under the current model where we keep paying more for less until they find a way to kick us off all together. Your last sentence presents a model that is completely unsustainable.
Posted by Louise, a resident of the Hacienda Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Jim01 - health care costs already have a cap regardless of the company you or your employer contract with. Would you rather a corporation with the mindset of making a profit off of your premiums make the decision on how much coverage you are allowed? Not me.
Where did you get this statistic: "85% of the American people had health insurance, and 95% of the 85% were happy with it"? This sounds incredibly inaccurate to me.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Your last sentence presents a model that is completely unsustainable.
No, it does not. Thanks for agreeing with me on the previous point, btw. But as I have posted previously, Rep Paul Ryan has a real GOP recommendation for a roadmap for fixing Medicare and giving the uninsured health insurance --> Web Link
More importantly, it preserves our freedom.
If we leave everything else as it is, yes, the uninsured cannot all be put on Medicare & Medicaid.
The truth is that that we have to do something that is fiscally responsible, the Democrat claim of saving $1T has been shown to be a trick with the numbers, benefits are provided for 6.5 years while taxes increase with the Obama's signature on this.
Another truth is that we should listen to the American people, fully 70% of Americans polled want this Democrat HCR stopped.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Jim, I don't actually agree with you on anything you wrote.
However, I thank you for clarifying that the statistic you provided is in fact incredibly inaccurate, considering the source. I will assume that your "70%" statistic comes from the same source and disregard it as such.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Pleasanton Mom for Truth,
There is absolutely no way that healthcare will improve after a Government takeover. It will absolutely cost more, and it will absolutely delivery less service. It's already happened in Massachusetts. The agenda of a socialist Government is not the same as the goals of the Doctor.
The destruction of the health care system starts with the payment system. Among the code words here are "pay for performance" and "accountable care." This is how the bureaucracy will enforce its dictates concerning what works and what doesn't, best practices, cost effectiveness, and termination of health care no longer deemed worthy. Doctors and hospitals will be rewarded through payments if they follow the centralized bureaucracy's dictates; they will be penalized with reduced payments if they don't. You will never know what happened to you. The doctor is not going to tell you, "I could have saved your daughter's life with this new treatment, but that is not yet a best practice according to the government."
Health care obliteration then continues by constricting the payments overall to doctors, hospitals, specialists, surgeons, health care innovators, and other health providers. This is where the $500 billion in Medicare cuts come in, which is $800 billion in the first 10 years of full implementation under Obamacare. Seniors will soon find out that constricted payments mean constricted services, because President Obama has already begun cutting payments under Medicare, particularly for cancer and heart specialists, treatments, and diagnostics. But this is just part of the constricted payments to the entire health system under Obamacare, which is how Obama thinks he will bring the cost curve down.
The sad truth is that the only cost control in Obamacare involves health care rationing, which means denying you health care. Those union orchestrated sad sacks marching in the streets chanting for "health care" are suckers.
The final component ultimately leaving us with Potemkin Village health care is the effect of all of this on investment incentives. Nobody is going to invest the capital necessary to develop the new, life-saving health care treatments and technologies and miracle cure drugs, and build the new facilities and purchase the new equipment to provide them, with the constricted payments of Obamacare as their reward. That money will instead join the capital fleeing to build new factories providing good jobs in the increasingly booming economies of Brazil, India, and China.
We can begin to see these effects of Obamacare in Massachusetts, which adopted some of the Obamacare policies a few years ago. As John Goodman writes in his Health Alert ("Scaling the Summit") for February 26, "As a result, the waiting times to see a new doctor in Boston are twice as long as in any other U.S. city (because doctors left Massachusetts in droves). And there are still as many people going to emergency rooms for care in Massachusetts today as there were before the Massachusetts health plan was adopted." Insurance premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the country. And they are now proposing rationing of healthcare due to incredible cost overruns.
But none of the supporters of Obamacare -- the bloggers, the talk show hosts, the literal clowns like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Wanda Sykes understand any of this. They have their heads firmly and deeply stuck in the sand, and insist it is all made up.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:47 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Cholo, I said nothing about the care people are receiving.
The Dem and GOP agree that financially, it is unsustainable. The politicians have looted the money coming into it for years. All the payments going out are paid by the money coming in from workers today.
The baby boomers are starting to go on Medicare, there will not be enough money coming in soon. Our politicians failed to plan for any kind of rainy day, and Medicare will run out of cash before too much longer.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:54 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Louise - health care costs already have a cap regardless of the company you or your employer contract with. Would you rather a corporation with the mindset of making a profit off of your premiums make the decision on how much coverage you are allowed?
The fact is the health insurance companies clear a 2.2% profit margin. Now since we are talking about an incredible amount of revenue, they make a lot of cash. I trust the free market model more than I trust a government monopoly. I do not want the politicians making these type of decisions. The more open a market is to competition, the better off the consumer of the product is going to be.
If an evil corporation is doing bad stuff (and they have and they will), and someone can come in and offer a better product and doesn't rip off customers, they will win in an open and free market.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
What PMom said about incentive to invest is also very important, if the government determines all of the pricing and thus all of the profit, the incentives to innovate, companies like Kaiser, etc, that a lot of people really like will lose some or all of that incentive.
Note that: "The numbers for 2008 do not capture the economic impact in the first half of 2009 as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs and likely their health insurance" and "Based on current job losses, for instance, some researchers estimate the present-day number of uninsured is closer to 50 million, the number now used by the Congressional Budget Office". And this report was in Sept 09, five months prior to our seeing our highest unemployment rate yet.
Although we won't know the true impact of the recession on health care insurance coverage until late this year for 2009, and late next year for 2010, I can't imagine that the true number of where we are today will look the same, or have improved.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Jim, I apologize for falling for the Fox News stunt. I should have known, their numbers would have been higher! :)
Pleasanton Mom, you have written seven paragraphs which do nothing to convince me of your stance. You give a critique of the Massachusetts HC system, which is not what we are talking about. You use the term "Obamacare," which has no meaning. You present a misleading argument regarding rationing, and make far fetched predictions regarding an adverse effect on advancing health care technologies. Finally, you fail to see that people can legitimately disagree with your position, instead insisting they have their "heads stuck in the sand." In other words, you talk a lot, but you just don't contribute anything meaty to the debate.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 5:32 am
New information on the number of uninsured Americans . . . in this case, Californians.
It turns out that "About 8.2 million Californians younger than 65 — or nearly one in four — lacked insurance during all or part of last year, up from 6.4 million in 2007. The findings surprised even those who had anticipated a sizable jump among the uninsured due to unemployment, which hit 12.5 percent in January." Web Link
I'm guessing that California is just the tip of the iceburg and our numbers forecast what we'll soon be seeing across the nation. Which of course means higher costs to hospitals treating the uninsured, who then pass the cost to the (wonderful, free market, unregulated) insurance carriers (so beloved by the GOP and the Tea Party Nation), who will then pass the cost via higher premiums to those (without pre-existing conditions) they still insure. Oh wait, that's already happening . . .
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 6:07 am
Oh, and Pleasanton Mom,
You like to use descriptive labels so much (LOL!!), here's one for you: "Plagiarist".
"Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."" Web Link
It took me a minute to find it, but your post above from March 15th was taken word for word from an article written by Peter Ferrara. Web Link
No quotation marks, no credit to the real author. Just the words as if they were your own . . . hey, you even managed to fool your friend "jimf01".
The Wikipedia article also noted that "Content scraping is a phenomenon of copy and pasting material from Internet websites" . . . hmmmmm . . . "content scraping" . . . I hadn't heard that term before, but it sounds kind of nasty, doesn't it? LOL!! Like when someone has nothing new or constructive to say, they just scrape the bottom of the barrel and recycle the same old . . . stuff.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 6:34 am
"The more open a market is to competition, the better off the consumer of the product is going to be. If an evil corporation is doing bad stuff (and they have and they will), and someone can come in and offer a better product and doesn't rip off customers, they will win in an open and free market."
I absolutely agree. The problem is that there isn't any real competition in the insurance cartel's "free market", and there never will be until they're hit where it hurts . . . in their profit. As long as insurance providers are allowed to continue to drive their rates up (and I don't for one second believe that there is no collusion on rate setting) in this so-called "free market", the consumer will always suffer.
The only way to drive rates down, other than regulation up the kazoo, is to have a public option that provides, as you say, "a better product and doesn't rip off customers". One which would not only insure the millions without health insurance, but would undoubtedly also draw consumers paying the outrageous premiums set by the cartel.
Now I'm not saying a purely government run system like Medicare is the answer (although there is the idea of a single payer to provide basic coverage with the consumer supplementing as they require, and forcing Congress to figure out how to really pay for it), but an insurance exchange made up of private providers. Just like those of us who are employed (or in my case retired) by an employer who has always provided a selection of health care providers to choose from.
The only time my employer was, or is, involved in administration of my health care is during the yearly enrollment. They don't make decisions during the year on what's covered or not. That's between me and my carrier . . . and why I have always carefully reviewed what is covered by each carrier in my particular employer's "exchange", and picked the best one for me and my family.
I see absolutely no reason why a public insurance exchange option wouldn't work in the larger scope of health care reform for all Americans.
Posted by Pablo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 7:50 am
How did Thomas Jefferson know?
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...'
ARE WE IGNORING THE WORDS OF OUR ' FOUNDING FATHERS?' OR WHAT???
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 17, 2010 at 9:51 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Rae said - Just the words as if they were your own . . . hey, you even managed to fool your friend "jimf01"... when someone has nothing new or constructive to say
Rae - your statement is used over and over when one wants to disregard a statement, truthfully or not they say that a person copied the content from elsewhere.
The small problem with this argument is, it doesn't make the statement false! You can discredit the source as left or right-wing, surely they are all liars on FNC or MSNBC or this blog, etc., that is just slightly better than rejecting a statement outright. Mostly it is a copout.
Rae said - I see absolutely no reason why a public insurance exchange option wouldn't work in the larger scope of health care reform for all Americans.
The (main) reason is defacto price controls. The government operating a public exchange is akin to the referees in the NFL fielding their own team. If they don't like how things are going, they can just say the other team has violated a rule.
In the case of health insurance, currently a profit-seeking enterprise, going into competition with the government is a problem, because the government operation can be funded and run forever in the red, and simply price the profit-seeking enterprises out of the market. There is nothing in current legislation to prevent Congress from doing that.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Now "jimf01", I know you and "Pleasanton Mom" got all tingly and bonded yesterday at your little rally (LOL!!), but if you were truly "a wonderful person, a treasure of common sense and good judgement, and a nice guy!" you'd be honest and admit that there is . . . nothing . . . new in the Ferrara article that "Pleasanton Mom" posted as her own opinion.
Frankly, just because "Pleasanton Mom" (or any other poster for that matter) feels the need to post the same opinions, albeit from different authors, over and over again in different threads, it doesn't mean that I must necessarily feel a corresponding need to repetitively respond to those same opinions.
In any case, repetition of my opinion is not going to make a believer out of someone who is politically a polar opposite; someone who feels that only those who are in their "band of patriots" are "true Americans", blessed by God in the fight against "evil" to "take back our country". The rest of us, it's been made clear, are sadly lacking in spiritual values, patriotism, allegiance to America, and even sanity. But I digress . . .
You can gloss it over, try and deflect the issue back on me, and say that it's just "a copout" to call "Pleasanton Mom" out on her posting. But the truth is "Pleasanton Mom" posted an article written by Peter Ferrara as her own opinion. It is . . . never . . . appropriate to plagiarize someone else's work.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 12:53 pm
"It seems all you do is attack and belittle your fellow citizens - the ones who can see clearly what's happening."
LOL!! Now that's a good one coming from you! I know that you believe that you're on the side of everything that's good and right, but we've had this conversation before about YOUR enthusiastic use of derogatory labels. May I remind you of what I said in response to you claiming that you just "have to use words (names) as identifiers to concepts, so as to communicate"?
I said, "Just to refresh your memory, I did a little cutting and pasting of my own for a sampling of your own words from some of your posts: "Still, God has a remnant, a band of patriots growing in strength and numbers to take back our country. We will restore America!" ""The dangers of conservative regimes that claim to have God on their side" exist only in the mind of a Liberal." "we are in a fight between Good and Evil." "if you haven't been too badly damaged by the lies and fraud that is Liberalism, you will even be rejoicing at having "see the light". "The Democrat Party is serving as the Marxists' (Progressives) Useful Idiots." "Trying to "get along or go along" with "crazy" doesn't work! The Tea Party movement is helping Republicans to understand that they have to stop appeasing the CRAZY Libs and get back to their conservative roots, or else they're out too!" Democrats are "radical Liberals/Marxists" who “hate our Constitution”, have “villified [sic] our Founding Fathers”, “lied about our founding principles” and are out to destroy “the Freedom is that is [our children’s] birthright.” “Any vote for a Democrat now is an automatic vote for Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America" (the destruction of America and our way of life).”
"At the very least, for you to claim that you don't engage in name-calling is disingenuous."
"Perhaps while you're chiding others to be open to what you, and the right-wing commentators you so love, have to say, you might actually step back and take a look at the picture you're portraying about yourself with your narrow-minded, partisan commentary. You may find your use of derogatory labels in everything you post descriptive, but, frankly, you use them so frequently and with such gusto that they overshadow any point you may be trying to make. In any case, I don't believe there is anything that is posted from either the extreme right or left that is going to influence those in polar opposition, and very few people who post opinions online are sitting on the fence on any political issue."
and that, once again, is my opinion, in my own words.