January 31, 2013

"IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family."

How can this possibly work?

213 comments:

1 – 200 of 213   Newer›   Newest»
edutcher said...

It can't, of course, but we had to pass it to see what's in it.

Now that we know, let's repeal it.

PS Waiting for all the trolls to tell us how people will love it when it goes into full effect.

(well, that should send the economy right through the floorboards)

jacksonjay said...

SUCKERS!

kentuckyliz said...

$20,000 family health care policies
....
PROFIT!

The Underwear Gnomes designed this system.

Jane said...

First reaction: this is just an example with round numbers to make the math work.

Second reaction: the oldest child in the example is 21 years old. Are parents required to cover their adult children?

Sorun said...

A low-ball estimate of what it costs when everyone gets everything for free.

Lem said...

SUCKERS!

Not really...

When Madoff was sentenced the judge was probably reassured that the ponzi scheme had occurred w/o anybody, or hardly anybody, knowing about it.

We, OTOH, are on the path to disaster with our eyes wide open.

Julius Reincarnate said...

It's not supposed to work. It's supposed to fail. And then we get single-payer.

AEH said...

Jane: Parents are required to cover children until the age of 26.

traditionalguy said...

The Obama tyranny has doubled the cost for half the care.

Julius Reincarnate said...

Breast pumps are expensive, ya' know...

bagoh20 said...

Heath Insurance Company: I think we should raise our prices to $19,995. I don't know. Just make up a reason.

Paul said...

If true, this is why Justice Roberts voted for Obamacare.

It will collapse upon it's own weight.

$20G a year? I don't even pay that now and I've had health care for over 30 years as part of my employment (and I pay part of that to.)

Well you voted guys voted for Obama.. Pelosi.. Reid.. and see what you get?

Henry said...

Nice to know my employer's insurance plan is competitive.

It won't be so nice if they drop it.

bagoh20 said...

And, some insurance companies have already announced that they will no longer honor pricing for a full year. Your premium can go up very month.

This is all working out just splendid.

"We have to pass it to see what's init."

Ha ha, that just never stop cracking me up. Who said women aren't funny?

Sorun said...

Business idea: Go to Mexico and buy all of the ObamaCare breast pumps being re-sold on the black market there. Then resell them back to the US Government. Profit!

Tim said...

Ok, so where are the Obama-trolls to defend this?

Obama promised his "health care reform" bill would reduce the cost of health care by at least %2,500.

Obama promised his "health care reform" bill would reduce costs, expand access, and improve care.

Simultaneously.

O.k. Obama voters, explain, in detail and with citations, how the ACA will, in fact, reduce costs, expand access and improve care.

furious_a said...

We are so screwed.

Mark said...

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Mark said...

Julius, the Honest Democrat.

Tim said...

Where's that smug asshole Ritmo to explain it for us, with authoritative citations?

chickelit said...

Enjoy the decline!

Tim said...

Where's that smug asshole R.V. to explain it for us, with authoritative citations?

Tim said...

Where's that Obama felcher, Garage Mahal, to explain it for us, with authoritative citations?

chickelit said...

Dems just lost the Senate in 2014

Tim said...

Where's that Tourette's victim, Shiloh, to explain it for us, with authoritative citations?

bpm4532 said...

Oh, and that will be with AFTER-TAX dollars if you have to pay for it yourself.

There's so much waste in terms of administrative overhead built into every step of the medical delivery cycle at this point that I'd bet you only get 30-40 cents on the dollar in true medical care. Probably less when you consider the anti-competitive elements of Obamacare.

Tim said...

Where's that lobotomy patient, machine, to explain it for us, with authoritative citations?

Tim said...

Where's that health care expert, Inga (with a daughter or grandchild in every conceivable profession or situation), to explain it for us, with authoritative citations?

furious_a said...

Tim:Obama promised his "health care reform" bill would reduce costs, expand access, and improve care.

: "It's about jobs. In it's life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately
-- Nancy Pelosi

Almost. Immediately.

Matthew Sablan said...

The consequences: They were unexpected!

Michael K said...

The purpose was never to make health care affordable. It was to drive private insurance out of business. Single payer will be the next proposal. It won't work any better than Obamacare. Anybody remember what you call a horse designed by a committee?

A camel.

This is a camel. It does accomplish the purpose of destroying the private health care market.

Mark said...

The Affordable Care Act: Where the US electorate has its nose rubbed in the poo it voted for.

MadisonMan said...

Luckily, a dollar will only be worth a penny.

My current plan costs about $15K per year. My employer covers most of that now. I think I'm paying almost $3K of it.

$20K in 2016 doesn't sound too far-fetched.

furious_a said...

On page 2 of 73 of the cited IRS regulation:

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

Ha-ha, revenooers, those jokers!

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Bush's fault. George W. Bush destroyed the soul of millions of libs.

Those libs need care, and it is going to cost us all plenty.

Way to go electing Bush twice, me. Thanks a lot.

bagoh20 said...

"$20K in 2016 doesn't sound too far-fetched."

This is the cheapest plan, and it's a government estimate, so it could actually be anywhere from $30k to 5 of those trillion dollar coins.

mccullough said...

We'll end up with the same single-payer system that we had for healthcare in 1913.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Has the government ever overestimated a cost since the Hoover Dam?

Penny said...

"It's not supposed to work. It's supposed to fail. And then we get single-payer."

Not to mention Obama using this as a teaching moment of why compromising on ANYTHING just gets you into bigger messes.

"I won, dammit. Now get out of my way!"

mccullough said...

Maine and Massachusetts both have guaranteed issue and community rating health insurance and their premiums are over $20k for a family of four.

bagoh20 said...

We have 3 years of adjustments ahead on this figure. Awesome.

Should we make bets?

Writ Small said...

20,000 for private insurance or 2,000 for the IRS "penalty."

ObamaCare is all about the freedom to choose.

furious_a said...

The scramble for subsidies is going to look like Somali refugees hitting a relief convoy.

Your call is very important to us...

Roux said...

5K a piece sounds about right considering all of the mandated coverage.

chickelit said...

@Penny: You have wind in your sails and your jibs cut nicely!

wildswan said...

Was it me, I just wouldn't pay - that's 18,000 dollars cheaper and just as effective. Under Obamacare they have to sign you up and treat you when you get sick. Just In Time Insurance - Jiti, be big Hiti, little buck, big bang, go Jiti go

Why have we been criticizing this excellent plan?

Bender said...

At $20,000 per year per family -- or even at $5,000 per year per individual -- it is far cheaper to "self-insure."

How many individuals are going to rack up $5,000 per year in healthcare costs? Especially if they are young and healthy? Maybe one percent, and probably closer to one-tenth that?

How many are going to incur $10,000 in costs over two years? or $25,000 over five years?

It would be far more cost-effective to simply keep the money and pay out of pocket. If someone has any higher costs than that, they can take out a loan for less than what premiums will cost.

But then again, ALL OF THIS WAS KNOWN BEFORE THIS DESPOTIC TYRANNY WAS IMPOSED UPON US. It was well known that the individual mandate would do nothing except make people's lives more difficult and more filled with hardship.

Brew Master said...

Julius Reincarnate said...
It's not supposed to work. It's supposed to fail. And then we get single-payer.


This!

It is designed to bankrupt the insurance industry. The government then has the justification of taking over the whole game.

This not transparent from the start was it not?

Julius Reincarnate said...

Policy cost was always the problem with ObamaCare. You could easily see it coming. The Democrats kept saying that the special combination of the different aspects of ObamaCare would make health insurance more affordable, like some medeval witch's concoction. And Republicans never challenged this. Republicans failed to make the case to the public that when insurance is mandated, and when it must include all sorts of things, it will become a sellers' market and prices will increase. If they had made this case, then ObamaCare would have been defeated. Democrats schemed in their heads, Republicans failed to make an opposition case, and now we are left to pay the $20K bill.

But don't worry: The public will get used to the idea of "public" health care, and that will pave the way for single-payer, with real death panels and real waiting lists and real tax increases.

Julius Reincarnate said...

Very few will opt-out and pay the penalty. Americans are law-abiding people. If the government says "do this", then they do it. They will cough up the money even if it is incredibly difficult. Better to pay than to have to indicate on your tax return that you are a traitor to the nation.

Mary Beth said...

How do they get $20,000 as the lowest price when the examples say it is the average price?

chickelit said...

@Dead Julius: But don't worry: The public will get used to the idea of "public" health care, and that will pave the way for single-payer, with real death panels and real waiting lists and real tax increases.

People will never unvote themselves largesse, but they will unvote others such (Clinton welfare reform). Unless, of course, people keep swallowing the loads from DC.

Tim said...

Where are all the Obama-voting trolls to defend this?

What happen to them?

chickelit said...

@Dead Julius: Plus I think you're under underestimating the rabble power of private sector unemployment--something our President seems to have dubbed "Mission Accomplished"?

chickelit said...

I smell a wafts of Ritmo Rinascimento in Julius Reincarnate.

Just sayin'

LilyBart said...

Very few will opt-out and pay the penalty. Americans are law-abiding people.

That was the OLD America. People are figuring out that the government makes chumps out of the law-abiding.

Paying your own bills is stupid. Make your neighbors pay!

Tim said...

"Better to pay than to have to indicate on your tax return that you are a traitor to the nation."

Ah yes, indeed.

Because that whole notion of negative rights embodied by the Constitution?

Totally passe.

Otherwise, Democrats, talking about traitors.

Almost funny.

Dante said...

That's 2/5ths of the median family income in 2011, and median family income is dropping.

Matt said...

Interesting thing that occurs to me:

Adult children are often used as dependents for tax purposes. This is something that's mainly come about due to financial aid at college and various refundable tax credits in tuition. It's a wonderful little scam; letting jr. take out $10,000 in debt while mom and pop get a nice fat refundable tax credit. My parents used this several years to wipe out most of their tax obligation.

I say this because, obviously, these regulations are going to require YOU to make sure your dependents have coverage, and will add quite a downside to keeping your adult children on as dependents through the maximum age.

I think the math comes out better for young people to just claim themselves as dependents. Entry level work doesn't pay enough to give you any tax burden. Even without insurance, for the average 20 something working a cheap entry level job fresh out of school you can easily wash the penalty out with the earned income credit. Self insure with cash (you'll be shocked how cheap this can be if you shop around), if something more than you can handle comes up you just sign up for your insurance from the exchange...

This whole thing will collapse under its own weight.

Dante said...

Correction, household income.

Dante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

" Republicans failed to make the case"

Obamacare was not popular, it was passed with no Republican support in the dark of night, with nobody reading it by Democrats all by themselves. Good or bad, the Republicans deserve no blame for the turd. Nothing says Democrat like this law and how we got it.

Rabel said...

That's for a bronze plan kiddies. Don't forget to add in the 5k to 10k annual deductible.

Rabel said...

From Volokh:

"The health care law does impose a minimum set of “essential health benefits” for most insurance plans. Those benefits have yet to be specified, but are expected to reflect what a typical small-business plan now offers, with added preventive, mental health and other services.

That is precisely why premiums for bronze plans would cost between $4,500 and $5,000 per year [individual policy] under the Act (as estimated by the CBO), whereas true catastrophic plans are currently available for around $420 per year (as quoted online for a policy that covers a thirty-year-old nonsmoker, doesn’t cover preventative and other non-essential services, and carries a $10,000 deductible)."

Those true catastrophic plans won't be available under Obamacare.

Levi Starks said...

chickelit said...
Enjoy the decline!


Careful, You'll go down the memory hole....

Levi Starks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Levi Starks said...

And Satan answered God: Yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

Biff said...

As Julius said, It's not supposed to work. It's supposed to fail. And then we get single-payer.

I've been hearing single-payer advocates in the healthcare community saying exactly that since the Clinton administration. Their opponents usually don't take them seriously because the opponents tend to assume that single-payer is not politically possible, given the perceived political strength of insurers. This ignores the fact that there are ways to erode political power. (How influential are the tobacco companies these days?) I've also seen people intellectually blank out when confronted with others who believe in single-payer. Really, the equivalent of closing one's eyes and yelling, "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! I'm not listening!!" Someday, the GOP will start taking the Democrats and the left at face value: the left is serious about what they say. Serious as a heart attack.

As for $20,000 per family, that's already common in high cost states. My sister pays roughly that much already in NJ, and adjusting for family size, I actually pay a little more than that in CT. No one seems to want to ask why health insurance is significantly cheaper in demographically similar states like PA. Hint: mandates.

My state, CT, mandates that insurers cover naturopathic medicine, i.e. quackery. Yeah, that'll keep costs down. It's downright offensive that my premiums are inflated, at least in part, by a requirement to cover treatments that boastfully lack scientific basis.

Levi Starks said...

What baffles me is that no one holds the mainstream media accountable for going into the tank for Obama.

I wonder if there has ever been another time in history where the news media carried water for the leader while he lied to his citizens for his own glory?

William said...

I understand that the Head Start program never achieved what it promised. It nevertheless remains funded because some day they might figure out a way to make it work. So it will go with Obamacare....When was the last time a governmet program folded because it failed.

SOJO said...

I know someone that will be getting the first care they've had in 25 YEARS after Jan. 1, 2014 because of Obamacare, and a wonderful HMO neurologist who will be retiring early (very early) because of it.

So, I'm torn. It's terrible to lose the neurologist and it's also terrible that we have a system where someone can't get care in a quarter of a century because they need the money for other things (like food, insurance, rent, gas and to pay the dentist) and they didn't burden the taxpayer with a bunch of illegitimate kids (and so never qualified nor ever wished to receive low income aid.)

ampersand said...

I know someone that will be getting the first care they've had in 25 YEARS

What exactly fo you mean? Do they have a pre-existing condition of some sort? Do you mean care or insurance?

McTriumph said...

Health care has always been available to anyone that needs it, just like guns, gasoline, food, etc. I'm 61, never had health insurance other than catastrophic, but I've purchased a lot of health care. I'll bet my doctor charges me much less than an insurance company for the same procedure.

Glenn Howes said...

So SOJO, your friend will be cutting out eating or paying rent now that she has to pay for insurance?

Meanwhile, as fear inducing as it may seem, I'm seriously considering just paying the tax for my family of 4. I wish catastrophic was still available, but I guess the tax is the equivalent of paying for catastrophic with the must cover mandate, except it won't go to the insurance companies.

How fast do you think you can sign up for insurance if one needs 100s of thousands of dollars of care? Might be a market for an iPhone app that can do that from the ER.

Glenn Howes said...

Does anyone know if I have to buy plans for my entire family? If not, it seems like the move to make in the case of a catastrophe to 1 member of my family would be to buy the gold plan with no deductible in the ER for that one family member for however many months are needed and then drop it after maxing out on mandated services (mole removal, liposuction, whatever, it'll have no marginal cost.)

MayBee said...

So, if this is supposed to flip us to single payer, where are we going to get $20,000 per year per family to pay for that?

MayBee said...

AEH said...
Jane: Parents are required to cover children until the age of 26.

1/31/13, 9:56 PM
------------

That can't possibly be true. You can't make parents responsible for legal adults, many of whom will be married and have children of their own.

rcommal said...

All I can say is this: Older folks are riding on a gravy train. Those folks arranged a good deal for themselves. Part of the good deal for themselves is that they get to hang out on the Althouse blog, for example, complaining, on account of their excessive leisure time (and their lack of imagination as to how to use the time on their hands).

I was raised to respect old and older folks, full stop.

I have learned, since that time, that those who are even slightly older **now** are nothing like the elders I was raised to respect ** then.**

Pftuie.

rcommal said...

On their heads, I place the blame.

Dumb asses.

rcommal said...

Let me edit that:

Put "greedy and short-sighted/self-serving thinking" before "dumb asses."

Bruce Hayden said...

So, if this is supposed to flip us to single payer, where are we going to get $20,000 per year per family to pay for that?

Sarah Palin called it early on - "Death Panels", which is a catchy way of saying quotas (and, ignoring the politicization that we are already seeing in what is covered). All you have to do is look at how the NHS operates in the UK, or even in Canada, where a couple of years ago, small cities in the U.S. would have more MRIs and CAT Scans than entire provinces. I have a client who is a nuclear oncologist from Canada who practices here, where he can have his own particle accelerator, something that entire provinces still don't own one of. And, if they did, you probably couldn't get into benefit from one in time to save your life, if your cancer were the least bit aggressive.

There is absolutely no way that you can run a single payer system without significant rationing. Won't work economically. Without any part of the market doing the rationing, you are left with it being done by bureaucrats, who inevitably do it much less well than does the market. And, one of the inevitable side effects of single payer systems is that innovation comes to a screeching halt. Part of this is that the government bureaucracy is, by its very nature, much more risk adverse than the market.

Bruce Hayden said...

That can't possibly be true. You can't make parents responsible for legal adults, many of whom will be married and have children of their own.

I hadn't thought about the next generation. I think that the requirement for parents to cover their children until 26 or so was based maybe on the assumption that they would be in graduate school until then. After all, most of those in Congress who voted for this (all Dems, of course) expect that their kids will stay unmarried until then, and spend most of that time in graduate school. Because that is, of course, what everyone, who is anyone, does.

My guess is that the mandate actually stops when the kids marry and/or have their own kids. Just a guess, but don't expect that that mandate covers grandkids or children-in-law (but, they have their own parents to cover them).

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Haz said...

Remember, this plan is so mega-awesome that Nancy Pelosi granted her entire district an exemption from participating in it.

MayBee said...

Bruce- is it possible the mandate is on the insurer's end only? They must provide insurance for children up to age 26, but parents don't have to provide that insurance after 18 or 21?
That would make more sense.

MayBee said...

The good thing about the NHS is nobody who gets sick or has an accident has to worry about affording care. It is not a concern

But living here, I have come to realize there are a lot of private clinics, lots of supplemental insurances (cancer, stroke) and lots of ads reaching out to people in financial distress due to medical conditions. There is a need to close emergency rooms, and the government is in perpetual disarray over what to do about it. Some people are going to end up far away from emergency and trauma centers

It is soooo not the panacea liberals in the US seem to think it is. They have many of the same issues people in the US think such a system would fix

sydney said...

I wonder if there has ever been another time in history where the news media carried water for the leader while he lied to his citizens for his own glory?

Germany, 1934-1945. Russia 1920s-1990s. China under Mao. There are probably more examples, but those come most readily to mind.

AllenS said...

rcommal said...
All I can say is this: Older folks are riding on a gravy train. Those folks arranged a good deal for themselves.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can tell you my story. I worked ever since I've been able to work, and I saved my money. Going somewhere on vacation happened very seldom. I bought this farm in 1973. I was 26 years old. I paid off the mortgage in 1981. I was 34 years old. I've always had more than one job. During the summers I drove home after work and then jumped on a tractor and put up hay. Winter time, before work and after work I went to the barn to feed the hay to some cattle. Retired/lost my job in 1999. I was 52 years old. Collected $610 monthly pension when I turned 55. Started to collect social security when I turned 62. Signed up for Medicare when I turned 65. Did you know that Medicare isn't free? They take the premium right out of the social security check. By the way, at 66 years old, I'm still working, only for myself. Cash. Combine that with my investments, I'm not doing too bad. It hasn't been easy, but it has been rewarding.

Robert Cook said...

It was apparent from the start this was a sham put together to benefit the health insurance companies while giving the appearance of providing a service to millions of Americans. Obama is a (not so) stealth candidate for Wall Street and the other big money corporations who have been strip-mining America for years. Communist? Socialist? Ha! He's a kick-ass capitalist tool, baby!

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
It was apparent from the start this was a sham put together to benefit the health insurance companies while giving the appearance of providing a service to millions of Americans. Obama is a (not so) stealth candidate for Wall Street and the other big money corporations who have been strip-mining America for years. Communist? Socialist? Ha! He's a kick-ass capitalist tool, baby!

It was a bill to eliminate insurance companies you simpering dumbass.
I have never met, in my life, someone who can type and who is so enamored of conspiracies and resistant to reason.

Michael Haz said...

rcommal said...

All I can say is this: Older folks are riding on a gravy train. Those folks arranged a good deal for themselves.

Please stop by and show my where my gravy train is.

My deal is pretty much like Allen's and it's aggravating as heck that someone would think it a gravy train.

I started working at 14, worked all through high school and paid my own way through university by working nearly full time in factories, bars and restaurants while a full-time student. During summers I worked both first and second shift jobs, usually at the same time.

I built my first home at age 24, lived well below my means and paid it off quickly. I used MY money to start two businesses. I invested every dang penny I could.

Vacation? Ha! There was a four year span when I didn't take a single day off.

My wife bought most of her clothes at Goodwill until she was in her 30s. We still squeeze every penny, but through hard, hard work, delayed gratification and abject thrift, we have enough saved and invested for an okay retirement.

Now I'm facing the requirement that I join the government healthcare plan, a plan the will ultimately deny me coverage for some major disease thereby prematurely ending my life.

How the fuck is that a gravy train?

McTriumph said...

rcommal
Don't blame older folks, blame every democrat since FDR. The democrats have been working on this dream since January 11, 1944.

McTriumph said...

Allen & Michael
You guys make me feel like a grasshopper.

Suzane Rebecca said...

For all news related to politics, Politics Today News App

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/politics-today-hand-picked/id469563500?mt=8

This App is top rated on the AppStore and is a great one-stop App for real-time news and analysis on U.S. Politics.

PT pulls breaking news and content articles from publications, journalists, columnists, think tank, and beltway bloggers who publish across the Web. The App continuously monitors and adjusts online source lists to include new analysts and publications as well as opinion leaders of note.The App's user interface is beautiful and makes it easy to read articles and research on the iPad, simple and efficient. This is a great App for collecting and reading all this content into one place. It is the most useful politics related App on the iTunes Store.

Its part of a series, all their Apps are on http://www.algoryt.hm

JackOfVA said...

The $20K is used by the IRS in an "example" calculation, and seems not to be an actual estimate. Rather, it's a nice round number to make the sample penalty ('tax') calculation simple.

That being said, I don't find the $20K number all that unrealistic for the reasons well stated in the comments.

Before I became ineligible for private coverage (turned 65 and you are, for all practical purposes, forced off private insurance) coverage from Blue Cross / Blue Shield for my wife and I ran $12-13K/year. And that was with the highest deductible offered.

Historical health care insurance increases have run close to 10% per year, with larger increases in the last couple years as a consequence of Obamacare regulations. This puts $20K/year for a low end family policy by 2016 into the believable category.

Robert Cook said...

"It was a bill to eliminate insurance companies you simpering dumbass."

I know you are, but what am I?

Uh, no...it was a bill that provides a more or less captive audience of potentially millions of new customers to the health insurance companies.

Funny how this plan, partly designed by conservative drunk tank--er, "think tank"--The Heritage Foundation and introduced to the world as Romneycare, was once cheered by conservatives, and yet when put forth by a "socialist" (sic) "far left" (sic) President, it is somehow now a sinister plot to usher in--duh duh duh!--single payer health care and the destruction of the health insurance companies! (If only it were that, if only....)

Robert Cook said...

"'I wonder if there has ever been another time in history where the news media carried water for the leader while he lied to his citizens for his own glory?'

"Germany, 1934-1945. Russia 1920s-1990s. China under Mao. There are probably more examples, but those come most readily to mind."


America, 2000-2008.

Rick Caird said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick Caird said...

A number of people seem to think that ObamaCare's flaws will lead to a single payer. I strongly disagree. ObamaCare polls poorly and it passed without a single Republican vote. If ObamaCare is opened for legislative "fixes", it will be decimated. The Democrats are stuck with it and cannot let it be reopened. Rock. Hard Place.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
"It was a bill to eliminate insurance companies you simpering dumbass."

I know you are, but what am I?

Uh, no...it was a bill that provides a more or less captive audience of potentially millions of new customers to the health insurance companies.

Funny how this plan, partly designed by conservative drunk tank--er, "think tank"--The Heritage Foundation and introduced to the world as Romneycare, was once cheered by conservatives, and yet when put forth by a "socialist" (sic) "far left" (sic) President, it is somehow now a sinister plot to usher in--duh duh duh!--single payer health care and the destruction of the health insurance companies! (If only it were that, if only....)

So ya got huthin' huh.
The ultimate goal is to get rid of insurance companies making the government the sole provider of health insurance.
Honest to god, Bob. You got a mind like an empty bank vault.

Robert Cook said...

Rusty, just repeating your previous claim does not make it any more true.

Colonel Angus said...

Communist? Socialist? Ha! He's a kick-ass capitalist tool, baby!

Actually, he is the worst kind of socialist, the kind that combines private enterprise with the government and with the power of the State through regulation and legislation, is the entity that is really calling the shots.

As with the GM bailout, he used the power of the State to crush the legal rights of bondholders while taxpayer money was used to bail out unions and essentially nationalize a private enterprise.
He may not be a full bore communist but he certainly leans in that direction. Like father like son.

Rick Caird said...

@Robert Cook

"The Heritage Foundation and introduced to the world as Romneycare,"

That is completely untrue. It is a meme that left has seized upon, but it complete exaggeration. The "Heritage Proposal" was a single person's presentation. Further, it was for catastrophic care, not health insurance as we know it or as ObamaCare requires.

I have the original presentation in pdf format, but I cant seem to find it on the web right now. But here is a story on it:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

The left just loves to flood the zone with misinformation. When I used to read Barry Ritholtz's blog, I had a back and forth with a liberal poster known as "Invictus" on this. Invictus finally gave up and just refused to engage any more. That is the typical liberal response when exposed.

Colonel Angus said...

Rusty has a point. I doubt most insurers other than the big ones will be able to survive under the regulations and pricing caps that are in place. Eventually we will be left with only a few health insurers and they will eventually become quasi government agencies along the lines of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Just a continuation of an ever expanding government meddling in our lives.

Tom said...

Professor: The answer is: it was never meant to work.

Pogo said...

I am only comforted by the knowledge that McCain would have been worse.

sydney said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skipper said...

How does one get hired to provide bankruptcy representation to the federal government?

wyo sis said...

Skipper
Go to journalism school.

Robert Cook said...

"'The Heritage Foundation and introduced to the world as Romneycare'

"That is completely untrue. It is a meme that left has seized upon, but it complete exaggeration."


Ann Coulter is a leftist? Wow!

(Relevant passages: "A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.

"Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care."

SeanF said...

Mary Beth, I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who noticed that. The author of the article said "cheapest" and "minimum" several times, but whenever they actually quoted the document, it was "average." I think they were referring to it as the "minimum" because it's for the bronze level plan, which will be the lowest allowable level.

Does seem like a lot, though. I pay a little over $4000 annually in premiums right now (family of 4), but I'm not sure how much additional my employer pays.

Freder Frederson said...

Parents are required to cover children until the age of 26.

Parents can, but are not required to cover children to the age of 26.

chickelit said...

Robert Cook implies that the American press covered for GWB 2000-2008.

No, the press was largely reacting to 9/11 as were most of us. And BTW, Al Gore would have been a disaster as would John Kerry have been.

Rick Caird said...

@Robert Cook

I love guys like you. You cherry pick your quotes (probably because you don't read the whole article). You said:

(Relevant passages: "A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.

But, later in your reference, Coulter points out:

What went wrong with Romneycare wasn't a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.

First, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature set the threshold for receiving a subsidy so that it included people making just below the median income in the United States, a policy known as "redistribution of income." For more on this policy, see "Marx, Karl."

Then, liberals destroyed the group-rate, "no frills" private insurance plans allowed under Romneycare (i.e. the only kind of health insurance a normal person would want to buy, but which is banned in most states) by adding dozens of state mandates, including requiring insurers to cover chiropractors and in vitro fertilization -- a policy known as "pandering to lobbyists."

So, it is clear, as I said initially, this is not what Heritage ever proposed. It is not catastrophic care aimed at addressing the requirement of free health care at emergency rooms, but rather something entirely different.

Look, if you are going to provide a reference, why don't you read the whole thing first rather than let the reference contradict you again.

CEO-MMP said...

My doctor's office is always apologetic when they take money from me--I self pay, and usually in cash.

I was finally moved to ask them why they were so apologetic, since, because I self pay they charge me about half what they charge to the patient/insurance company tandem.

Seems to me they should apologize to the rest of the country.

Crimso said...

"the kind that combines private enterprise with the government and with the power of the State through regulation and legislation, is the entity that is really calling the shots."

This is one of the major characteristics of a fascist system (and by that I mean an actual, by definition, use of the word "fascist," not the commonly (mis)used form of the word).

Rick Caird said...

@Robert Cook

Oh, and Regina Herzlinger is not particularly conservative. She favors the mandate and has written multiple times on that, but her idea is, what she calls "consumer driven health care". But, on investigation, neither ObamaCare nor the Massachusetts plan is consumer driven. Both are legislature driven with mandated coverages base on lobbying ability..

SteveR said...

Yes its supposed to fail and it won't be blamed on the government. This was well planned.

AJ Lynch said...

Math is hard!

Michael Haz said...

@ McTriumph - Thanks. No one suffers as much as the man who tries to keep old Brit iron running in humid weather.

Robert Cook said...

@Rick Caird:

I read the story you linked to. It amounts to morning after regrets and excuse making on the part of Mr. Butler, an apologia to excuse his and the Foundation's former championing of the plan they helped craft but that, now advanced by a Democratic president, has become anathema and must be denounced!

He says: "...the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on 'catastrophic' costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance."

So, he makes a major distinction between the Heritage plan and Romneycare: the former plan was designed to push people to obtain protection (i.e., health insurance)not for their own good but for the good of others.

Wow! That's some big difference, boy!

He goes on: "Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick."

Okay, so they wanted people to want to buy their own insurance through advantages made available to them, rather than being coerced to do it on pain of penalty. Fair enough. This has always been one of the things to object to about Obamneycare, that people are forced by law to buy insurance from private vendors, (as I indicated originally, Obamneycare is a gift to the insurance companies, delivering a "more or less captive audience of potentially millions of new customers" to them).

Finally, he says: "And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the 'mandate' was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement."

So, it turns out the Heritage Plan did contain a "stick" of sorts, and not just a "carrot," in order to compel people to buy insurance. The big difference Butler refers to in point 2 is only that rather than being forced to buy insurance under pain of law, customers would be induced to buy insurance or they would lose certain tax breaks.

Okay, again, it is a difference, but there is still the necessary inclusion of a means to compel people to buy or they will lose something. Under the Heritage plan they will lose preferred tax breaks; under Obamneycare they will have to pay fines. But wait...under the Obama plan, isn't the legal punishment they will face for not buying insurance, isn't the "fine" they will pay, isn't it in the form of...a tax penalty?

Why, yes...it is!

Isn't having to pay a tax penalty very similar to losing a tax break? Either way, one will find the taxes one must pay are greater than they otherwise would be, so, in my view the answer is "yes."

So, it seems the distinctions Mr. Butler tries to draw between the plan put forth by the Heritage Foundation and Obamneycare are really no distinctions at all, or, at best, shades of distinctions.

This shows teh crazy of the right wing: rather than claim credit for a plan they significantly helped design, and argue that Obama has "seen the light" and come over to their way of seeing things (rather than do the dirty deed of trying to push through "socialized medicine"), they throw their own formerly preferred plan for health insurance "reform" under the bus, so committed are they to the baloneyful notion that Obama is a socialist.

Scott M said...

I have never met, in my life, someone who can type and who is so enamored of conspiracies and resistant to reason.

Don't be so hard on Cook. Up until recently, he thought the Americans that the Iranians took as hostages back during Carter were all treated well.

Scott M said...

Isn't having to pay a tax penalty very similar to losing a tax break?

LOL, no. The penalty has the force of law and guys with guns behind it. Losing a tax break first involves choice (whether to comply and keep it or not to comply and lose it), then adjusting to that decision.

Only in your world would being arrested for non-compliance with a tax penalty be considered adjusting to a decision made by the citizen being led away in cuffs.

Strelnikov said...

It's not designed to "work". It's designed to bankrupt the private insurance industry, after which idiots like Schumer will stand up in the Senate and say something to the effect of "See? We gave private competition a chance and it failed. We've done all we can and now we have no alternative but single payer." I always pictured that bloated buffoon Teddy Kennedy saying it.

chrisnavin.com said...

Red Robert cook is an actual socialist.

You can clearly see that despite its disastrous failures, it provides a worldview, an explanation for events and a purpose on profound levels.

Robert Cook said...

Rick Caird: the article I linked to didn't contradict me at all. I never claimed and no one claims that Romneycare or Obamneycare is a word for word, point for point implemenation of the plan promoted and partly designed by the Heritage Foundation. It is a version of what the Heritage Foundation designed and championed. That HF health care analyst Bob Moffit flew to Boston for the signing (of Romneycare) indicates the HF did not at that time repudiate the plan as it had been implemented and rejiggered.

The primary distinction is that the one plan was put forth by a Republican governor and was thus praiseworthy and the other by a Democratic president and is thus detestable for being the laying of the foundation for the coming of "socialized medicine."

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...

Funny how this plan, partly designed by conservative drunk tank--er, "think tank"--The Heritage Foundation and introduced to the world as Romneycare, was once cheered by conservatives, and yet when put forth by a "socialist" (sic) "far left" (sic) President, it is somehow now a sinister plot to usher in--duh duh duh!--single payer health care and the destruction of the health insurance companies!


Hey dummy, let me help you.

1. Romneycare was not "cheered by conservatives"

2. Romenycare is not ObamaCare.

3. You're so fucking stupid I almost feel sorry for you.

Jay said...

I never claimed and no one claims that Romneycare or Obamneycare is a word for word, point for point implemenation of the plan

No stupid shit, you just keep saying that one plan was implemented by a Republican and one was implemented by a Democrat and that is the difference.

You have not one utter fucking clue what the differences are - and they are major - so you go on pretending.

Pretending is what you people do.

Colonel Angus said...

So, it seems the distinctions Mr. Butler tries to draw between the plan put forth by the Heritage Foundation and Obamneycare are really no distinctions at all, or, at best, shades of distinctions.

This shows teh crazy of the right wing:


Actually it shows a deficiency in your reading comprehension.

Robert Cook said...

"Don't be so hard on Cook. Up until recently, he thought the Americans that the Iranians took as hostages back during Carter were all treated well."

Well...sort of. I didn't say they had been treated well, I said they had not been treated badly. A subtle distinction but a distinction nevertheless.

I mainly remembered none of them had been killed.

That was my error, and I copped to it.

Scott M said...

That was my error, and I copped to it.

Hence the "until recently" characterization of your woefully uninformed view of history. Your distinction amounts to splitting hairs and grasping at the leftovers.

Robert Cook said...

"...you just keep saying that one plan was implemented by a Republican and one was implemented by a Democrat and that is the difference."

Yes.

Scott M said...

Yes.

Are you missing the fact that regardless of what the Massachusetts legislature and governor do, it doesn't affect me here in Missouri? That's not a significant difference between Romneycare and Obamacare?

Colonel Angus said...

I didn't say they had been treated well, I said they had not been treated badly. A subtle distinction but a distinction nevertheless.

Most people would argue that kidnapping people and holding them against their will by pain of death even if they got three squares a day a nice mattress is the definition of being treated badly.

BarrySanders20 said...

$20,000 for family coverage is reality right now. I received my W-2 yesterday and the new disclosure of the employer's cost of health insurance was $19,342. That's a high deductible plan that requires me to cover the first $5,000 in costs and pay $130 per month in premiums.

So $19,342 + $1,560 + $5,000 = $25,902 for family coverage in SE Wisconsin. Dental coverage is extra, about $1,000 a year

Fortunately we are all healthy. The boy goes for stitches every year or so, but that's pretty minor.

We'd be way ahead if that was cash compensation and we just bought our own care as needed with a catastrophic care insurance policy and a $15,000 deductible. But those are not allowed, so I buy, through my employer's choice, an everything under the sun policy larded with mandates that interest groups pushed through the state legislature and now with coverage goodies further dictated by Obamacare.

The only only only way to reduce costs with community rating, guaranteed issue, no pre-ex, no rescission, and larded goodies is to ration care at the provider level. Obamacare will do that by squeezing reimbursement rates for anyone under a government-pay plan and, eventually when the cost shift to the privately insured becomes too burdensome for the private insureds to subsidize the government-insureds, private payers will disappear and we will all be on the government plan. Then rationing affects all who cannot afford a true market-based fee for service because the government entirely controls the providers' reimbursement rates.

It will take a while, but we'll get there.

The underlying cost problem was not Obama's doing. My company's far too expensive plan (now $25,000 per year for family coverage) was expensive before Obama, largely due to the distorted market. My employer should not be choosing my health insurance and the government should not be subsidizing it through tax breaks. If Obama wanted to fix the system, he would have eliminated employer based coverage. This would have allowed the market to work to match what providers charge for services against what patients, privaeky insured or not, are willing to pay.

Instead, he placed mandates on employers and there is little or no market discipline. Free breast pumps, etc. Consume all you want and someone else will pay is certain to fail. We don't do that with cars, houses, food, entertainment, or ANYTHING else.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

BarrySanders20 said...
If Obama wanted to fix the system, he would have eliminated employer based coverage. This would have allowed the market to work to match what providers charge for services against what patients, privaeky insured or not, are willing to pay.


Exactly right.

jr565 said...

THe Ritmo's of the world will say the reason we oppose obamacare is we just don't care enough about the poor.
Yet, stuff like this is the reason we oppose Obamacare (that it will drive up costs on health care in particular on poor families)
Us critics of the bill will beproven to be right.
So, Ritmo can demagogue the right all it wants, but it's not the right that is sticking it to the poor when it comes to health care. We said it would drive up costs, and now it appears we were right. Ritmo and people like him care so much. With caring like that, who needs uncaring.

Now the dems are saying it's just an error. Hmmm, maybe having to pass a bill to find out what's in it leads to having bills with errors that cost poor families 20,000 dollars for health care. Just saying.

Bruce Hayden said...



A number of people seem to think that ObamaCare's flaws will lead to a single payer. I strongly disagree. ObamaCare polls poorly and it passed without a single Republican vote. If ObamaCare is opened for legislative "fixes", it will be decimated. The Democrats are stuck with it and cannot let it be reopened. Rock. Hard Place.


I think that there is something to this. Despite Cook's valiant attempts to try to pin ObbamaCare on the Republicans, Heritage, etc., they have no buy-in whatsoever with this legislation, and little with the concept. This the Dems, and the Dems alone. They open it up, and the House Reps are going to gut it. Which, right now, is not going to pass the Dem Senate or be signed by Obama. And, I think that they knew that it was going to be ugly, which is why they put most of the implementation after the 2012 election so that it wouldn't affect Obama's their vulnerable 2012 slate of Senators' chances for reelection.

I think that they all figured that they would get it passed, and keep the Republicans out for awhile, enough of us would become enamored with it, that they could become an almost permanent majority based on our love for it, as they did with Social Security and Medicare. But, we have to get used to it, depend on it, and forget how things used to be, before this is going to work. And, I don't see that as likely as they did a couple of years ago. Right now, and for maybe the next decade, I think that it will benefit Republicans more than Democrats, but if they can hang on until then, they might turn the corner. We shall see.

jr565 said...

Paul wrote:
$20G a year? I don't even pay that now and I've had health care for over 30 years as part of my employment (and I pay part of that to.)

Well you voted guys voted for Obama.. Pelosi.. Reid.. and see what you get?

i didn't pay that when I was working as a consultant and paid for my own health insurance out of pocket.

Scott M said...

If ObamaCare is opened for legislative "fixes", it will be decimated.

How do you "decimate" a law or a bill? Erase every tenth sentence? Kill every tenth legislator?

Original Mike said...

"How can this possibly work?"

That's what we oponents have been saying from the beginning. It's not insurance. It's pre-paid health care, with rates determined by the mandate to cover everything in the most inefficient way conceivable (i.e. no the "insured" has no skin in the game).

Bruce Hayden said...

Cook is just doing what he often does here - trying to change history so that the left and Dems will look better. Little different from trying to take credit for Lincoln and eliminating slavery, Jim Crow, etc. because leftist experts have conclusively proven that the two parties completely switched membership with Nixon's Southern Strategy and LBJ's purchase of the poor with his War on Poverty. The term is "revisionism", and it is notable that the left has embarked on revisionism for credit for ObamaCare even before it is fully enacted. I think by now that many of them, likely including Cook, believe that it will be an albatross around their neck for the next generation or so, and are desperately trying to pass the guilt around. Probably won't work though, except with the ultra-low information voters they recruited this last election to put Obama and those Senators over the top.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"That was my error, and I copped to it."

That admission was admirable (really), but you miss the point. Just holding them for 400+ days in grave uncertainty of their fate was grevious harm.

Bruce Hayden said...

How do you "decimate" a law or a bill? Erase every tenth sentence? Kill every tenth legislator?

Agree - the word is not really appropriate here. Took too many years of Latin in HS, and then to reinforce the pain, in college, to be happy with that use of this word. Still have a vision in my head of the centurians walking down the ranks of the legions, striking down each tenth trooper.

Scott M said...

@Bruce

True, but honestly, erasing every tenth sentence might be a good start.

Rick Caird said...

@Robert Cook

The only way you can misunderstand what you read so badly is if you try to misunderstand what you read.

It is clear from both your Coulter reference and my reference that Butler was trying to protect the public from the unlimited expense to the public of catastrophic events for the uninsured. Perhaps, you should think of it as the difference between auto liability insurance and auto collision insurance. Liability protects others. Collision protects the owner. Contrary to your understanding, that is a major distinction. I am surprised you missed something so obvious.

You also miss the role of insurance companies. ObamaCare is not a gift to the insurance companies. It was a bribe by the Democrats to the insurance companies so they would not fight it. You may remember the Harry and Sally commercials that sank HillaryCare. The Democrats knew ObamaCare could not survive such an onslaught. By the same token, the ban on reimportation of drugs was a bribe to the pharma companies, not a gift to them.

Finally, I really don’t understand your claim that loss of tax breaks is a stick. If I choose not to buy a house, I lose the mortgage deduction, but that is not a stick. It is a carrot if I buy a house and have a big enough mortgage. So, no, losing a tax break is not like paying a penalty. Paying a penalty is something out of pocket. Losing a tax break usually means I have spent more than the tax break and the tax break just reduces my out of pocket cost. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts. Rates were cut in exchange for the limitations of the tax breaks. That resulted in a more vibrant economy because people could choose what they did rather than being forced into certain activities because of taxes and tax rates. Penalties and tax breaks are big government techniques. Why should I pay more in total taxes if I rent a house than if I buy a house? That is the analogy you should have been using.

Your final paragraph shows just how large your misunderstanding is. Catastrophic coverage prevents costs from being imposed on the public. Socialized medicine imposes all medical costs on the public. This is a distinction with a major difference.

I hope I have been able to help your understanding of the issues.

Rick Caird said...

@Scott M

The idea of decimate as "taking a 10th" is the older usage of the word. Curently, (from dictionary.com)

dec·i·mate
[des-uh-meyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing.
1.
to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2.
to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3.
Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.

Way to be obsolete, Scott.

Lawyer Mom said...

O-care is an actuarial joke. Rational people will pay $2400 over $20k every day of the week since they can hop on the insurance train any time they like. The "tax" has NO enforcement provisions whatsoever, which is why Roberts held it was not a penalty.

If O-care is allowed to stand, we will have 2 systems shortly: Obamacaid for the poor and concierge doctors for the rich.

But here's a legal Q I've been wondering about: the "tax" for individuals is small and toothless so the individual mandate passed muster with Roberts as a tax, NOT a penalty. Employers, on the other hand, are handed a whopping, put-'em-out-of-business fine if they don't comply with the mandate.

Why wouldn't the S.Ct. hold the employer fine (for not providing mandated insurance) is an unconstitutional penalty which cannot be resurrected as valid under the commerce clause? (Hobby Lobby and Liberty U have raised this argument and their cases are in the pipeline. But media coverage seems to focus exclusively on their free-exercise claims).

Thoughts?

Scott M said...

Way to be obsolete, Scott.

Thanks. I open doors for broads too.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Liability protects others. Collision protects the owner. Contrary to your understanding, that is a major distinction. I am surprised you missed something so obvious.

We may have to cut Cook some slack on this, seeing as how the President of the United States once missed the exact same distinction-- when it was his own money at stake, no less.

Robert Cook said...

Rick,

Small distinctions aside, Obamacare is Romneycare* is the plan partially devised (as constantly reiterated) and formerly favored by the Heritage Foundation.

*(Hence: Obamneycare)

Paul Zrimsek said...

I open doors for broads too.

If you're going to plead old-fashionedness, you could at least call them "dames".

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

There's a YT vid of what Obama wanted which was single payer even if it took 20 years to get there.


You will be able to keep your insurance. LIE

(just like guns)

It was designed to destroy private industry.

My house is owned by the King and the bank is the front for my mortgage.

We never needed a gov't loan to buyy a home, always put down at least 25%, and this last refi the King owns the paper.

Even with values falling we still have more equity and there was no reason for the King to own the paper.

Some enterprising turk will come in and thanks to KELO, the King will be coming into your house at some point to make sure you're keeping it up to The King's standards.

This is human nature and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it's a good thing we live in modern times and need a "modern" Constitution, eh?

Those silly notions of 250+++ or 6000 years of recorded human history don't apply now, right?

Our FF lived this, that's why it's still valid today

Scott M said...

If you're going to plead old-fashionedness, you could at least call them "dames".

I'm obsolete, not old-fashioned. Two different larks.

Scott M said...

Small distinctions aside, Obamacare is Romneycare* is the plan partially devised (as constantly reiterated) and formerly favored by the Heritage Foundation.

That's like saying all black people think New York should be called Hymietown just because JJ said it should be. I know, there's a small distinction, but thinking that conservatives believe HF to be flawless misses the point entirely, as does thinking a state program and a federal program are the same thing.

Colonel Angus said...

Still have a vision in my head of the centurians walking down the ranks of the legions, striking down each tenth trooper.

I thought I read somewhere they let the rest of the legion beat them to death. Maybe that was a different punishment.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The key to carrying out this deception is to submerge (e.g. payroll tax) and delegate (i.e. redistributive change) the costs. Obama only needs to maintain democratic leverage through manipulation and fraud in order to retain the crown.

Meanwhile, he is offering material collateral to investors (e.g. China) in order to preserve the illusion of "hope and change". If we want "free" stuff, then we will have to pay for it, eventually and, unfortunately, selectively.

Tobias said...

My wife and I started our own business in 2005, and started buying health insurance at the time. We used to pay around $500/month for the two of us, which at the time seemed like a lot.

It's grown over the years and this last year was $1,100/month. Whenever we came to reenrollment time, I toyed with the idea of catastrophic coverage because it's becoming so unpalatable. Well, we got notice from our insurance broker that the price is going up to $2,100/month in 2014. Somehow, somewhere, we're going to have to come up with $1,000/month out of nowhere.

Things are already tight (we are now parents of a 5 yo and triplets...glad we kept that health insurance!) and we have no idea how we're going to make this work. I think we'll probably do what the single-payer proponents wish, pay the penalty and get health insurance on demand. I hate being forced into one method of behavior, but the alternative is financial suicide.

We found this out last October, but I don't think the news got around enough to effect the election.

Original Mike said...

I want to thank Rick Caird for educating me on the "ObamaCare was originally a conservative idea" canard the left pushes. Catastrophic care and ObamaCare bear virtually no resemblence. Catastrophic care is an economically viable concept. ObamaCare is not.

Bruce Hayden said...

I thought I read somewhere they let the rest of the legion beat them to death. Maybe that was a different punishment.

Rings a bell too. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Decimation that seems to bear our your memory better than mine.

Colonel Angus said...

Rings a bell too. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Decimation that seems to bear our your memory better than mine.

It makes me wonder if that was the inspiration for the tongue and cheek by-line of: "Beatings will continue until morale improves."

Colonel Angus said...

Catastrophic care is an economically viable concept.

If memory serves, this was the typical type of health insurance that was provided back in the 1950s & 60s. I know as early as the 1970's, my parents, essentially lower middle class (and at times dirt poor) had catastrophic care coverage and I don't recall insurmountable medical bills being the financial plague at the time. Then again, we weren't carted down to the doctor for every ear infection either but rather took a Tylenol and suffered through it.

Marshal said...

Tobias said...
Somehow, somewhere, we're going to have to come up with $1,000/month out of nowhere.


I guess the left still isn't worried about the effect on every undercapitalized small business in America.

SeanF said...

BarrySanders20: If Obama wanted to fix the system, he would have eliminated employer based coverage.

Under what constitutional provision would the the federal government be authorized to tell my employer they can't provide me with health insurance?

Original Mike said...

And as to the "ObamaCare = RomneyCare" defense, you must have noticed the general disdain of RomneyCare by conservatives, Robert. Why do you ignore it?

Rusty said...

Rick Caird said...
@Robert Cook

No sarcasm. I admire your patience, but comrade Bob is un-educatable.

Levi Starks said...

Tobias said:

"it's grown over the years and this last year was $1,100/month. Whenever we came to reenrollment time, I toyed with the idea of catastrophic coverage because it's becoming so unpalatable. Well, we got notice from our insurance broker that the price is going up to $2,100/month in 2014. Somehow, somewhere, we're going to have to come up with $1,000/month out of nowhere."

So your insurance has gone from doubling in 6 years, to doubling in 2 years.

Thats what our highly educated President like to call
"Bending the health care cost curve down"

I think our president must spend a lot of time standing on his head.

Levi Starks said...

Colonel Angus said.. "suffered"

Sorry Colonel, but the word suffer isn't in the democratic lexicon.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

SEANF Under what constitutional provision would the the federal government be authorized to tell my employer they can't provide me with health insurance?

Very simply, by subjecting the portion of health coverage provided by your employer to taxation as income. It was the distortion to the market brought about by this exemption that brought about the whole silly notion of relying on a third party for something like health insurance (which of course lead to true costs being hidden from consumers, etc). This all goes back to the tight labor market of the 40's, with high marginal tax rates on income. Employers had incentives to attract good employees by raising compensation... and the most bang for the buck due to tax law was to provide benefits like health insurance.

If you take a small economic distortion created by tax law complexity... 70 years hence the ripples from that distortion can create some serious problems.

Levi Starks said...

Actually when health insurance was first started it was intended as a benefit which cost the employer almost nothing.
During WW2 it became more popular because of government wage controls. It was a loophole which business used to attract better employees, when offering them more money was against the law.

David-2 said...

Colonel Angus said...

Actually, he is the worst kind of socialist, the kind that combines private enterprise with the government and with the power of the State through regulation and legislation, is the entity that is really calling the shots.


I.e., Facism. Or as Jonah Goldberg called it specifically, Liberal Facism. They reviled him for saying it. But looky: he's right.

Original Mike said...

"During WW2 it became more popular because of government wage controls. It was a loophole which business used to attract better employees, when offering them more money was against the law."

Is there anything the government hasn't fucked up?

Jerome said...

"Parents can, but are not required to cover children to the age of 26."

Parents are not required to cover their children. However, insurers are required to cover the children of their customers. The parents are merely required to pay for the coverage. See how that works?

Jerome said...

"During WW2 it became more popular because of government wage controls. It was a loophole which business used to attract better employees, when offering them more money was against the law."

Actually, it was a loophole which Harry Truman gave to the unions.

Robert Cook said...

"'Actually, he is the worst kind of socialist, the kind that combines private enterprise with the government and with the power of the State through regulation and legislation, is the entity that is really calling the shots.'

"I.e., Facism. Or as Jonah Goldberg called it specifically, Liberal Facism. They reviled him for saying it. But looky: he's right."


Goldberg is a dope, but that's not why I bothered to quote this. Here's a pertinent article I found today that discusses the beginnings of large-scale government involvement in and regulation of private businesses.

It turns out it was driven by the big corporations who needed saving from themselves, but they could not achieve it without seeking a political solution. Then, as now, government policy is driven by the needs and guiding hand of big business--government is subservient to big business--grumbling rhetoric by businessmen to the contrary. (I.e., it's all for show.)

Original Mike said...

"And as to the "ObamaCare = RomneyCare" defense, you must have noticed the general disdain of RomneyCare by conservatives, Robert. Why do you ignore it?"

Guess I'll have to answer my own question. You ignore it, because it decimates (couldn't resist) your thesis that the only reason for conservative opposition is because it's Obama's program.

Clorinda said...

Blogger MayBee said...

AEH said...
Jane: Parents are required to cover children until the age of 26.

1/31/13, 9:56 PM
------------

That can't possibly be true. You can't make parents responsible for legal adults, many of whom will be married and have children of their own.

2/1/13, 3:25 AM



TA DA! Please follow the link and read section 2714 (a) "IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance
issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that
provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make
such coverage available for an adult child until the child turns
26 years of age
. Nothing in this section shall require a health
plan or a health insurance issuer described in the preceding sentence
to make coverage available for a child of a child receiving
dependent coverage."

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf

So yes, children can be covered up to age 26, but not necessarily children of those children.

Bryan C said...

"Communist? Socialist? Ha! He's a kick-ass capitalist tool, baby!"

The bankers and insurers might be capitalists, of a sort. But the guy in the White House is conferring the power of the State on his favored corporate benefactors. That's not capitalism, it's fascism.

Aside from that, I agree.

Bryan C said...

"Communist? Socialist? Ha! He's a kick-ass capitalist tool, baby!"

The bankers and insurers might be capitalists, of a sort. But the guy in the White House is conferring the power of the State on his favored corporate benefactors. That's not capitalism, it's fascism.

Aside from that, I agree.

Robert Cook said...

"You ignore it, because it decimates (couldn't resist) your thesis...."

I ignore it because it's immaterial.

Robert Cook said...

"That's not capitalism, it's fascism."

As it has developed today, is there any difference? It's a redundancy.

Andy Freeman said...

The only people who can use "Obamacare is Romneycare" as an argument for Obamacare are people who believe that anything Romney proposed is a good thing.

The rest of us are entitled to argue that Obamacare is a steaming pile because of what it is, regardless of its relationship to any other proposal.

Marshal said...

Robert Cook said...
It turns out it was driven by the big corporations who needed saving from themselves, but they could not achieve it without seeking a political solution. Then, as now, government policy is driven by the needs and guiding hand of big business--government is subservient to big business--grumbling rhetoric by businessmen to the contrary. (I.e., it's all for show.)


Somehow Cook manages to stumble across the truth yet manages to misunderstand it. Of course business tries to influence government to protect it. This should be a clue to Cook that free marketers aren't big business shills as he alleges, but even when the blind squirrel finding a nut sometimes mistakes it for a stone.

Shockingly he manages to conclude evidence conflicting with his worldview really supports it.

Original Mike said...

Immaterial? This is your assertion:

"Funny how this plan, partly designed by conservative drunk tank--er, "think tank"--The Heritage Foundation and introduced to the world as Romneycare, was once cheered by conservatives, and yet when put forth by a "socialist" (sic) "far left" (sic) President, it is somehow now a sinister plot to usher in--duh duh duh!--single payer health care and the destruction of the health insurance companies! (If only it were that, if only....)"

Robert Cook said...

That some--even many--conservatives do not like Romneycare does not cancel out the reality that it originated with conservative thinkers and was implemented under a Republican governorship.

Paul Zrimsek said...

This should be a clue to Cook that free marketers aren't big business shills as he alleges, but even when the blind squirrel finding a nut sometimes mistakes it for a stone.

Well, I suppose he doesn't have to believe in the good faith of free marketeers if he doesn't want to. But what really bemuses is that he reads this article describing how attempts by business to rig markets kept failing and failing up until the Progressive Era-- and comes away thinking he's found out something important about business, when what he's really found out is something important about the Progressive Era.

Robert Cook said...

Marshal,

It is you who miss the point: for all their grumbling about "interference" by big government, (and they do grumble if it is "interference" that will benefit workers or consumers), big business desires and expects big government "interference" when they need it to save their collective asses. They can't have it both ways without being lying liars and hypocritical hypocrits--which, of course, they are.

They want the power of big government (and the money of the people) to save them from the excesses of their own profligacy and greed, (or from the competitive pressures of true "free marketplace" competition), but if it will result in any smidgen of benefit to their workers or to their customers, they want none of it.

Obama's closest aides are Wall Street men; everything the Obama administration is doing and has done is--obviously or less than obviously--in service to Wall Street's agenda, the public be damned. If Obama had an (R) as his party designation, all you slobs would be singing his praises as a "tough" "real politik" player. (Well, most of you.)

Original Mike said...

Robert, if Rick is correct, the Heritage plan was for Catastrophic Care, which is diametrically opposite of either RomneyCare or ObamaCare.

Robert Cook said...

Paul, it is you who misread the article, probably willfully so.

Robert Cook said...

Original Mike, it doesn't matter what type of care it was for: it was a plan devised by conservatives to deal with the expenses of health insurance and to find a means to make it available to more customers. The Heritage Foundation did not repudiate Romneycare for having deviated from their plan or intent, but sent a representative to the signing of the bill to show their approval and share in the acclaim.

It is only after the fact, when it becomes invconvenient to be associated with a plan that was later instituted nationally by a Democratic president, that they wish to disassociate themselves from it.

Original Mike said...

"it doesn't matter what type of care it was for:"

It absolutely matters.

Levi Starks said...

I was going to explain the difference between what states can do for their citizens, and what the federal government should not do for it's citizens, and then I decided why bother.....

Marshal said...

Robert Cook said...
Marshal,

It is you who miss the point: for all their grumbling about "interference" by big government, (and they do grumble if it is "interference" that will benefit workers or consumers), big business desires and expects big government "interference" when they need it to save their collective asses.


The only problem with this Robert is where you claim I miss it. The clue is where I wrote "Of course business tries to influence government to protect it."

You claim to grasp that government inappropriately influences government and the combination is a problem. That's not the problem. The problem is that you conclude we need government to involve itself in everything. So to summarize: government has proven itself the world over to be danegerously susceptible to coopting by various institutions, and therefore we must entrust government with vastly more control over our lives.

If Obama had an (R) as his party designation, all you slobs would be singing his praises as a "tough" "real politik" player. (Well, most of you.)

You don't know anyone on the right do you?

Bruce Hayden said...

Original Mike, it doesn't matter what type of care it was for: it was a plan devised by conservatives to deal with the expenses of health insurance and to find a means to make it available to more customers. The Heritage Foundation did not repudiate Romneycare for having deviated from their plan or intent, but sent a representative to the signing of the bill to show their approval and share in the acclaim.

Still doesn't make it a Republican scheme. Maybe a Heritage scheme, or one that they did not object to. And, Romney does take some responsibility, though he points out that he was facing strong Democratic majorities in both houses of his legislature, and therefore didn't have nearly as much say in RomneyCare as Obama did with ObamaCare. In short, Heritage+Romney doesn't make RomneyCare a Republican plan, but Dem Senate+Dem House+Dem President+No Republicans makes ObamaCare a totally Dem program.

Still, the difference between catastrophic coverage here and first dollar coverage with mandatory coverages is like night and day here. One of the advantages of catastrophic care for many of us, is that we can minimize our overall health care expenses by minimizing our use of the health care system. Combine that with an HSA, and you have a very nice package that keeps down overall health cost inflation. ObamaCare though, being first dollar coverage, with set deductibles and coverages provides just the opposite incentives - you are paying for the insurance, regardless of how much of it you use, so you might as well use it as much as you like. There is absolutely no incentive for the insured to minimize his usage of the insurance, and every incentive to maximize it. Inherently, not a good economic model.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 213   Newer› Newest»