Fuck this healthcare Reform...

[Denny Crane]

No, actually it doesn't.

Let's suppose that right now, the ratio in Oregon is exactly 2:1. Let's assume that there are 10 old people paying $200, and 10 young people paying $100. So the insurance company is raking in $3000. Let's assume they need to raise an extra $1000 to feed their families, Sprewell-style. They could raise the old people by $66.66 each, and the young people by $33.33 each, and raise an extra $1000 that way. Old people pay $266.66; young people pay $133.33, 2:1 ratio is maintained.

The % increase is the same for young and old people (33%); the absolute dollar increase is greater for old people ($66.66 vs $33.33).

Of course, they could instead raise the young people by $100 each, and charge the old folks nothing extra. That would also raise $1000. But that solution is not required.

barfo

Let's assume that AP's independent analysis says Barfo's wrong.

 

[barfo]

Let's assume that AP's independent analysis says Barfo's wrong.

You can assume that if you want to. I think your lack of math skills have betrayed you once again.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm satisfied with your math. Not only are young peoples' rates going up, but so are the elderly's.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[barfo]

I'm satisfied with your math. Not only are young peoples' rates going up, but so are the elderly's.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It's true - if you assume that rates are going up, as you did, then it logically follows that rates are going to go up. It's one of them thar tautology things.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Everywhere else where there is not already a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio, the young obviously will have to pay more.

They're not going to cut the elderly's rates to get to 3:1, they're going to up the rates of the younger people to get to 3:1.

 

[MARIS61]

When you get your next premium notice (if you have health insurance) and when the new taxes kick in.

Since my premium went up 28% a year ago and went up again 52% last fall, I think you'll need to blame that on something else like, uh...corporate greed combined with no public option.

Those 2 situations have not been changed at all by the bill so yes, our premiums will go up as they always have and no, it is not because of anything to do with the bill.

 

[MARIS61]

Everywhere else where there is not already a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio, the young obviously will have to pay more.

They're not going to cut the elderly's rates to get to 3:1, they're going to up the rates of the younger people to get to 3:1.

Since the insurance companies have been reaping obscene profits off both the seniors and the youngsters for a few decades now, why do you assume they won't pay a little back and actually CUT the rates for ALL citizens in gratitude?

You must think they are greedy monsters in need of tight government control or something.

 

[Denny Crane]

Since the insurance companies have been reaping obscene profits off both the seniors and the youngsters for a few decades now, why do you assume they won't pay a little back and actually CUT the rates for ALL citizens in gratitude?

You must think they are greedy monsters in need of tight government control or something.

 

[barfo]

Everywhere else where there is not already a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio, the young obviously will have to pay more.

This is true. Oregon is in fact an outlier - there are only a few states with a 3:1 ratio or better already - but since this discussion seemed to spring from It's Go Time's question "when will we personally begin to see the effects", the case of Oregon is relevant.

The reason young people will have to pay more in other states is that old people will pay less in other states.

They're not going to cut the elderly's rates to get to 3:1, they're going to up the rates of the younger people to get to 3:1.

Here you are assuming the insurance companies are greedy rapacious pigs, as Maris has already pointed out. Probably true, but I will hold out the hope that they simply adjust the rates such that the net is the same - meaning that old people pay less, young people pay more.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Since my premium went up 28% a year ago and went up again 52% last fall, I think you'll need to blame that on something else like, uh...corporate greed combined with no public option.

Those 2 situations have not been changed at all by the bill so yes, our premiums will go up as they always have and no, it is not because of anything to do with the bill.

You mean the corporate greed that averages less than 4% profit? Yeah, that's greedy. And if you want competition, just open up insurers to cross state lines. What would increase competition more, one new player or thousands of new players?

 

[maxiep]

Since the insurance companies have been reaping obscene profits off both the seniors and the youngsters for a few decades now, why do you assume they won't pay a little back and actually CUT the rates for ALL citizens in gratitude?

You must think they are greedy monsters in need of tight government control or something.

Since the public employee unions have been reaping obscene profits off the taxpayers with their promised returns on their pensions for a few decades now, how about you cut your government pension? After all, you know we can't afford all the public pensions and we overpromised what we could pay, you could cut your pension and lessen our tax burden in gratitude.

I would hate to think that public employees are greedy monsters in need of fiscal discipline or something

 

[barfo]

You mean the corporate greed that averages less than 4% profit? Yeah, that's greedy. And if you want competition, just open up insurers to cross state lines. What would increase competition more, one new player or thousands of new players?

Are there really thousands of players?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Are there really thousands of players?

barfo

There are. Remember all the major insurance companies have at least 50 different companies because they have to be separated by state. There are also countless other smaller providers.

 

[maxiep]

An interesting new angle to stopping this ridiculous mandate

http://volokh.com/2010/04/13/health-insurance-mandate-as-a-privacy-right-violation/

It's no one's business whether or not you have health insurance, just as it's no one's business whether or not you have an abortion.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

An interesting new angle to stopping this ridiculous mandate

http://volokh.com/2010/04/13/health-insurance-mandate-as-a-privacy-right-violation/

It's no one's business whether or not you have health insurance, just as it's no one's business whether or not you have an abortion.

Well, if I have no insurance, but I suffer a life-threatening emergency, then a hospital will be required by law to treat me at great expense with little hope of repayment, thereby causing them to increase costs across the board for future patients in order to make up for the shortfall caused by my lack of insurance. So, in that way, my lack of insurance has an impact on society, and is therefore "other people's business."

You know what--I don't buy it either.

 

[barfo]

An interesting new angle to stopping this ridiculous mandate

I don't really see the point of this sort of tactic. If government doesn't have the right to mandate that you buy a product, they certainly have the right to tax you and provide that product to you as a government service. Aren't conservatives trying to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire here?

barfo

 

[barfo]

There are. Remember all the major insurance companies have at least 50 different companies because they have to be separated by state. There are also countless other smaller providers.

Well, sure, but they aren't going to have all 50 sub companies compete in all 50 states if you open it up. They'll just consolidate their 50 companies into one.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, if I have no insurance, but I suffer a life-threatening emergency, then a hospital will be required by law to treat me at great expense with little hope of repayment, thereby causing them to increase costs across the board for future patients in order to make up for the shortfall caused by my lack of insurance. So, in that way, my lack of insurance has an impact on society, and is therefore "other people's business."

You know what--I don't buy it either.

Any data on how much providing emergency room care to the uninsured costs? My guess is that it is nowhere near $1 Trillion over 10 years. That being the case, we are better off keeping the system as is, and continue paying for uninsured to get emergency room care.

 

[maxiep]

Well, sure, but they aren't going to have all 50 sub companies compete in all 50 states if you open it up. They'll just consolidate their 50 companies into one.

barfo

Even considering those, there are tons of small insurance companies. I think the last number I saw was almost 13,000 registered health insurance companies. If you expand their markets, they'll specialize. One will specialize in covering smokers, another cancer survivors, another people with diabetes, another triatheletes, etc.

 

[maxiep]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/14/arizona-doctor-goes-galt/

 

[maxiep]

Shocking news.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/numbers-were-lie-all-along.html

Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Numbers Were A Lie All Along
The gloss is off the Obamacare rose, if it ever were there. The Office of the Actuary of Medicare has released a report which finds that Obamacare will increase, not decrease, health care costs, and ... (wait for it because you never would have guessed) ... the financial assumptions were unrealistic!

Shocked, shocked.

As reported by AP:

President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The CBO numbers were rigged, because the CBO was forced to follow unrealistic assumptions in its forecasts.

We said it, the American people understood it, but the Democrats forced the bill through anyway. They must pay the price in November.

Update: Now it makes sense. The Democrats refused to delay the vote on Obamacare even though the Medicare Actuary was not able to complete his analysis and cost estimates in time for the vote. In light of this report, it is clear why the Democrats didn't want to wait. They could game the CBO, but not the Medicaire Actuary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3JlcG9ydGhlYWx0aA--

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/cbo-credibility-first-victim-of.html

CBO Credibility The First Victim Of Obamacare
Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday how pleased she was with the precision of the CBO report on the cost of Obamacare. It would be easy to laugh out loud if so much were not at stake.

Nancy Pelosi has no credibility to lose, so she did no harm to herself. The tactics Democrats have used as to CBO scoring of bills, however, has destroyed the CBO's credibility.

The CBO is supposed to be a neutral calculator of legislation. And it is. I have no doubt that the people at the CBO do their best to calculate the cost of a bill, given the assumptions the CBO is required to follow.

And that is the catch. Whereas on less politicized legislation there may be reasonable assumptions built into a bill and requested by those seeking a cost estimate, as to the health care bills proposed by Democrats it has been all games.

Completely unrealistice assumptions have been foisted upon the CBO, and the CBO has been required to score the bill with phony math.

Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard has a devastating take-down of the CBO report on the cost of the latest Democratic incarnation of the health care bill, CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion:

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

There is more, much more. Read the full article.

The CBO report amounts to a fraud perpetrated not by the CBO, but by the Democrats who forced the CBO to play these games.

 

[Stevenson]

Obama and the liberals that follow him are communists. In communism everyone is "equal" and life is "fair". Whatever anyone earns is taken from them and distributed "fairly" among everyone else. Who gets what you earned and how much is decided by Obama and his administration. Everyone, even those who are not part of the "commune" (i.e. illegal immigrants) are welcome to what you earned and what Obama decides is fair to give them. The new healthcare plan is part of this "entitlement" package that the communists will give to everyone.

So you don't like police, fire departments, public education, and the military? Because those are all things where "income" is taken and shared "equally", where everyone is welcome, and where the amount you pay ("taxes") is determined by the government.

You really, and your ilk, have no idea what communism and socialism really are.

 

[maxiep]

So you don't like police, fire departments, public education, and the military? Because those are all things where "income" is taken and shared "equally", where everyone is welcome, and where the amount you pay ("taxes") is determined by the government.

You really, and your ilk, have no idea what communism and socialism really are.

You're smarter than this post.

 

[maxiep]

So you don't like police, fire departments, public education, and the military? Because those are all things where "income" is taken and shared "equally", where everyone is welcome, and where the amount you pay ("taxes") is determined by the government.

You really, and your ilk, have no idea what communism and socialism really are.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama--15421

 

[Stevenson]

You're smarter than this post.

Obama is a millionaire. Probably "socialism's" first! How does that jibe?

Is Obama a Democrat? Yes, but that is not the same thing as socialism or communism, just as being a Republican does not make one a fascist.

I find this 'Obama is a socialist' talk mostly hooey. Where's the beef? I read that article. I have little respect for Jonah Goldberg generally and remain unconvinced. The auto bailout and TARP programs were necessary to SAVE CAPITALISM. I mean, comeon. That was the point.

Even the Businessweek article I posted said that Obama's economic plan is free market oriented.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama is a millionaire. Probably "socialism's" first! How does that jibe?

Is Obama a Democrat? Yes, but that is not the same thing as socialism or communism, just as being a Republican does not make one a fascist.

I find this 'Obama is a socialist' talk mostly hooey. Where's the beef? I read that article. I have little respect for Jonah Goldberg generally and remain unconvinced. The auto bailout and TARP programs were necessary to SAVE CAPITALISM. I mean, comeon. That was the point.

Even the Businessweek article I posted said that Obama's economic plan is free market oriented.

I think there's a distinction between saying someone is fascist (or socialist) and something they do is fascist (or socialist).

Taking over GM and forcing people to pay for health care is socialist. On the other hand, socialists don't particularly want to work with big business or reform it - they want it to be community owned (though it is through public stock, FWIW). On the other other hand, fascists DO.

 

[Minstrel]

I think there's a distinction between saying someone is fascist (or socialist) and something they do is fascist (or socialist).

Taking over GM and forcing people to pay for health care is socialist. On the other hand, socialists don't particularly want to work with big business or reform it - they want it to be community owned (though it is through public stock, FWIW). On the other other hand, fascists DO.

Wow, that is pretty scary. So Obama is really a fascist who has socialist policies? Sortof a combination of Mussolini and Stalin? But without their toughness? So kindof a spineless Mussolini combined with spineless Stalin? Otherwise known as Jimmy Carter?

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, that is pretty scary. So Obama is really a fascist who has socialist policies? Sortof a combination of Mussolini and Stalin? But without their toughness? So kindof a spineless Mussolini combined with spineless Stalin? Otherwise known as Jimmy Carter?

I didn't say that now, did I?

His taking over GM and Fannie/Freddie and AIG and the health care thing are socialist things. His quest to "save" the private sector by regulating it and being owned by it is fascist.

Is he particularly either one? No. If anything, I question his overall competence for the job, and some of these policies are downright disastrous.

 

[Minstrel]

I didn't say that now, did I?

No, you're always very careful not to explicitly say that.

I just find it amusing that political discussion can no longer be about reasoned agreement or disagreement over policies. It has to be a referendum on whether the sitting President is a communist/fascist/terrorist/monarchist.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, you're always very careful not to explicitly say that.

I just find it amusing that political discussion can no longer be about reasoned agreement or disagreement over policies. It has to be a referendum on whether the sitting President is a communist/fascist/terrorist/monarchist.

See the bolded part:

I didn't say that now, did I?

His taking over GM and Fannie/Freddie and AIG and the health care thing are socialist things. His quest to "save" the private sector by regulating it and being owned by it is fascist.

Is he particularly either one? No. If anything, I question his overall competence for the job, and some of these policies are downright disastrous.