patrick.net

The core idea of Obamacare is that everyone will be required by law to pay private health insurance companies unlimited premiums.

Gotta love America. We take the worst ideas from the Left, and the worst ideas from the Right; and combine them into the worst possible legislation. Because that's how billionaires are made.

Insurers have to keep children on their parents' plans to a later age, but yet again, that will raise their payments and therefore raise premiums even more.

Sheesh. It's almost like there's no free lunch or something.

wthrfrk80 says

The core idea of Obamacare is that everyone will be required by law to pay private health insurance companies unlimited premiums.

Gotta love America. We take the worst ideas from the Left, and the worst ideas from the Right; and combine them into the worst possible legislation. Because that's how billionaires are made.

The part of the law where college kids can stay on their parents' policies and then the part about covering people with pre-existing conditions will stick around but I don't see the mandate surviving.

Did you know Obamacare is the most unpopular piece of Federal legislation since Prohibition?

rootvg says

You might want to read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/270847/obamacare-decision-may-invite-supremes-limit-federal-power-grace-marie-tur

I said "Legitimate", not NRO!! I think it's well-known that it will not be overturned.

Even now, you don't need to buy anything. You can chose to be fined, n'est-ce pas? And the Government has the ability to fine.

I thought the right-wing was about personal responsibility? Why do we who have insurance have to pick up the tab for those who wrongly believe that they are invincible?

CL says

To answer Patrick's question, wouldn't this really just mean there should be a Public Option, and if we had one consumers would vote accordingly with their dollars?

I do think there should be a public insurance option.

Then at least if I have to buy insurance, I'd have the option of buying into Medicare instead of being forced by law to hand over money to extremely rich private insurers.

Blue Shield may be a "non-profit" but that doesn't stop it from paying the CEO gigantic bonuses for hiking premiums on people like me.

What really pissed me off is being forced by law to pay the very rich. I'd rather let the government blow my money. But maybe there is no difference between the 0.1% and the government anymore.

CL says

rootvg says

You might want to read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/270847/obamacare-decision-may-invite-supremes-limit-federal-power-grace-marie-tur

I said "Legitimate", not NRO!! I think it's well-known that it will not be overturned.

Even now, you don't need to buy anything. You can chose to be fined, n'est-ce pas? And the Government has the ability to fine.

I thought the right-wing was about personal responsibility? Why do we who have insurance have to pick up the tab for those who wrongly believe that they are invincible?

So, I have to find a quote from Mother Jones or The Nation? Fuck that.

You just watch and see what happens. My understanding is the Court scheduled debate for three times the normal length given to both sides of a case. Whatever they decide, it will be a very big deal...just as Canada's highest court had to get involved with putting Medicare (their name for single payer) in force there during the 1960s.

CL says

Even now, you don't need to buy anything. You can chose to be fined, n'est-ce pas? And the Government has the ability to fine.

So you're ok with that? I don't think it's very "liberal" to force people to buy insurance from a private company. Heck, I'd much rather have some kind of single-payer "Medicare for All" system than some Rube-Goldberg broke-ass system that involves the worst of Big Government and Big Business.

EBGuy says

In the long run, I think Kaiser's model prevails and we'll get lower rates. In the short term Kaiser has to build more hospitals and up staffing levels to meet a much larger demand. There's not a ton of incentive to blast the competition out of the water on price if they can't accommodate the additional customers and patients. So they price below the other insurers so as not to lose share, but not enough to bring down prices. Meanwhile, Sutter and the insurers battle it out (not sure the patients see much benefit there as they're negotiating higher prices for doctor/hospital reimbursement). I think Sutter eventually offers their own insurance to go head to head with Kaiser as they'd then have doctors groups, hospitals, and insurance under one roof.

Forgive me for saying this; but only in America do you get people so naive that they think Kaiser's model is the answer. I had Kaiser Insurance for the majority of my life, they are scum same as everyone else and also have the distinction of being the original HMO.

That they are a nonprofit is a FARCE and their pioneering effort in HMO is the largest originator of our broken profiteer run Healthcare. The Answer is a real non profit, no fatass executives using non profit just as a tax dodge.

Wasn't Kaiser defeated in World War I? And when was he ever involved in health insurance?

I just got a new plan - and it limits me to 4 migraines a month. That might seem okay, but when you're in the middle of a horrible headache that debilitates you to the point that you can't see, are vomiting and even the cat walks too loud, limits on medication don't make sense.

If the CEO of my non-profit insurance plan had migraines, the cap would be lifted.

Blue Shield may be a "non-profit" but that doesn't stop it from paying the CEO gigantic bonuses for hiking premiums on people like me.

So why are you still with bc/bs? Get a catastrophic policy and pay day to day stuff out of pocket.

That is with just the catastrophic policy and paying day to day stuff out of pocket!

I checked the other insurers available in California. They all hiked rates in synch, defeating any notion of a "free market".

And of course, by law, I'm not allowed to get insurance from other states.

wthrfrk80 says

Wasn't Kaiser defeated in World War I? And when was he ever involved in health insurance?

You're thinking of the wrong Kaiser.

Ship building magnate Henry Kaiser got into the healthcare business when he hired the first doctor to take care of people building his victory ships.

Ah ok. My mistake. Henry Kaiser also invented sandwich rolls, right?

And of course, by law, I'm not allowed to get insurance from other states.

God Bless America!

The biggest failure of Obama care was lack of a public option, that could still be added and if the law is not overturned and if it doesn't keep costs down probably will be added. The frame work is already in place with Medicare.

Regarding the current increase in premiums for private/individual insurance, the theory is that the insurance exchanges will promote competition and allow consumers to compare policies more easily. They wont be in effect for another couple of years. The exchanges will make comparing coverage easier as to the cost control without out a public option I kind of doubt it, but time will tell. There were many failures in putting this piece of legislation together.

The republican mantra of repeal and replace hasn't panned out either. I have no doubt they would repeal it if given the opportunity but I have yet to see the proposed legislation to replace it. IMO a "free market" solution will not work, that is it will not provide reasonable coverage for all or even the close to the number covered by even the flawed Obama care concept. But until they put forth legislation that can be analyzed we really cant compare the two ideas. It is clear that the Ryan voucher plan for Medicare can not possibly work other than to reduce government costs by cost shifting, while creating a concurrent reduction in coverage by putting the cost burden more directly on the elderly private citizens. Someone should tell Ryan that there just aren't a lot of private insurers wanting to insure the 65+ year olds at a cost that could be afforded and possibly at any costs at all.

Forgive me for saying this; but only in America do you get people so naive that they think Kaiser's model is the answer. I had Kaiser Insurance for the majority of my life, they are scum same as everyone else and also have the distinction of being the original HMO.
Please share you experience with the rest of us. The doctors groups may be the weakest link in the Kaiser model. On the plus side, they are salaried and receive less remuneration than medical professionals in the fee for service model. This helps keep cost down. They are incentivized to have a healthy population. On the negative side, the doctor medical groups are for-profit, so there are no guarantees that lower costs get passed onto the consumer (though the insurance and hospital sides help provide some balance).
@wthrfrk80 - keep it coming. Always enjoy your low key sense of humor (a nice counterpoint to AF).

Danaseb says

In the long run, I think Kaiser's model prevails and we'll get lower rates. In the short term Kaiser has to build more hospitals and up staffing levels to meet a much larger demand. There's not a ton of incentive to blast the competition out of the water on price if they can't accommodate the additional customers and patients. So they price below the other insurers so as not to lose share, but not enough to bring down prices. Meanwhile, Sutter and the insurers battle it out (not sure the patients see much benefit there as they're negotiating higher prices for doctor/hospital reimbursement). I think Sutter eventually offers their own insurance to go head to head with Kaiser as they'd then have doctors groups, hospitals, and insurance under one roof.

I have seen their plans for when Obamacare hits. They have NO plans to up hospital staffing levels, and are very slowly building a few hospitals here and there, but not enough to make a real difference.

Their basic plan is to drastically change their criteria for hospital admission: you'll have to be dying to get admitted, and when you are, they're going to discharge you(kick you to the curb) to outpatient treatment asap. A higher up bluntly told me there is no way they can keep the same level of service with the influx of new patients.

RedStar says

you'll have to be dying to get admitted, and when you are, they're going to discharge you(kick you to the curb) to outpatient treatment asap.

Ironically, kicking people out of the hospital quickly seems to save lives.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but I saw some study that showed that the less time people spend in the hospital, the better they recover, up to some limit of course. One reason is that there's less of a chance for opportunistic infections. No matter how clean a hospital is, it's full of sick people with various infections, and you just don't want to be near them when you're weak.

What would the health of our nation, and the accessibility to healthcare services look like, if we didn't have to pay the insurance man his dues before being able to do business with the healthcare people?

Health Care Bill:

1. For starters, rents will go up thanks to the 5% passive income tax that was attached to the bill. By how much? Around 7% (you tax the gross). Rising rents trickle out to everything which causes price inflation for all goods and services.

2. The bill: it's probably the largest make-work project in the history of the US funded by the middle class (see #1 and #3).

3. Because many employers offer health insurance, rising premiums will obviously be paid through a) higher revenue, made possible through price increases, and/or b) lower wages. Both options will screw the common middle class American.

4. How to keep health care affordable: the only way is through higher deductibles and where the patient pays a percentage of the costs. Also, allowing the patient to shop around. But the bill virtually prohibits all of this. Why? To force premiums higher.

4. How to keep health care affordable: the only way is through higher deductibles and where the patient pays a percentage of the costs.

Kill the employer tax deduction for providing health insurance (160B savings) and instead promote HSA's (tax exempt). Seeing as how individuals are not allowed to purge student loans in bankruptcy (or even death), let the citizenry get on the other side of that trade. Play creditor to the health care student debtors, so the value of the savings accounts will grow(incentive)

Better yet, be the change you see in the world. Get healthy. The "western diet" is killing us slowly. Be an American and take your health responsibility into your own hands. Stop eating sugar. Won't cure all that ails us, but it would cut the national health bill in half. Sugar consumption is deadly

Whether we like it or not, at some point the whole 'retirement' and dying as slowly as possible model is going to have to be remodeled. The majority of health care dollars are spent helping us die as drugged up and as dragged out as possible. Have some dignity

housingcasino4865 says

Health Care Bill:

1. For starters, rents will go up thanks to the 5% passive income tax that was attached to the bill. By how much? Around 7% (you tax the gross). Rising rents trickle out to everything which causes price inflation for all goods and services.

2. The bill: it's probably the largest make-work project in the history of the US funded by the middle class (see #1 and #3).

3. Because many employers offer health insurance, rising premiums will obviously be paid through a) higher revenue, made possible through price increases, and/or b) lower wages. Both options will screw the common middle class American.

4. How to keep health care affordable: the only way is through higher deductibles and where the patient pays a percentage of the costs. Also, allowing the patient to shop around. But the bill virtually prohibits all of this. Why? To force premiums higher.

My doctor from fifteen years ago in Dallas said the only possible solution to all this is going back to fee-for-service and eliminating the insurance companies completely. I'd like to think we could do that but here again, what the insurance companies want they usually get. Most venture capital firms are backed by insurance. That's just how it is.

I cut back on sugar years ago. I still have salt on scrambled eggs but it's sea salt instead of the stuff out of the round box with a girl's picture on the side. Even the chefs will tell you to use sea salt. Tony Bourdain uses sea salt.

salt isn't an issue, but sugar is the issue. salt is a necessary mineral for the body to function properly, and lowering salt intake may have net negative nutiritional effects

The analysis of data is from more than 167 studies of people with normal or high blood pressure. These people were randomly assigned to eat either low- or high-sodium diets. The study found that consuming less than 2,800 milligrams of sodium a day helped lower blood pressure though the reductions were very small. The reductions were only an average of 1% for people who had normal blood pressure to begin with and 3.5% for people with high blood pressure. For example, if your BP is 140/90 then reducing salt will only bring it down to 138/89 which is insignificant and meaningless. Another issue with the lower sodium diet is that it increased triglycerides by 7%, which is a unhealthy blood fat and when elevated increases risk of heart disease, when compared with the people who were eating more than 3450mg of sodium which is about what the average American eats in a day.

Salt is an issue if your pressure (controlled with meds) is 140/90. I've been on meds for about five years, will probably be on them forever. It's a low dose with minimal side effects, enough to get me past the FAA every two years.

http://www.preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

Becoming healthy would certainly solve the health care problem. Unfortunately, the very same interests that are profiting from the industry are the same one's who control the research.

1. Do you really believe the health care industry wants healthy people?

2. How would the bottom line be affected if a cure for all diseases were to be discovered?

The entire health care industry is a fraud. Everything you think you know is wrong.

1. Do you really believe the health care industry wants healthy people?

absolutely. the people that provide the service of health care, that is their goal. The "health" insurance industry, they get rich from people being of bad health, so no, it's not in their best interest.

2. How would the bottom line be affected if a cure for all diseases were to be discovered?

now you are just being silly with a cure for all diseases. It's the American diet that is the problem. top to bottom. government subsidizes all this ag. all this ag, utilizes so much good land. All that ag, is the single largest consumer of petroleum. The two biggest products? corn and soy. Most of it is used to feed animals. Animals aren't supposed to eat that crap, any more than humans, so the quality of a good diets life blood, animal protein, is of low quality. There is corn syrup (sugar) in everything we eat. That makes people extremely ill. It also puts enormous strain on the total health of our nation

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

"absolutely. the people that provide the service of health care, that is their goal. The "health" insurance industry, they get rich from people being of bad health, so no, it's not in their best interest."

Why do you believe them, is it because they told you? I'll tell you this: I know where you can find a pot of gold worth $10,000, but first you need to give me $1,000.

housingcasino4865 says

How would the bottom line be affected if a cure for all diseases were to be discovered?

Chris Rock: "...ain't no money in a cure! They're still mad about all the money they lost on Polio!"

The core idea of Obamacare is that everyone will be required by law to pay private health insurance companies unlimited premiums.

That is the STATED goal of Obamacare - but as we all know, it is better to gauge politicians by what they DO and not what they SAY.
If the real point of Obamacare was to help the uninsured get coverage, there would be more openness in getting insurance (for example, across state and maybe even national lines) and the penalties for not having insurance would be closer to the cost of getting insurance - not only is the yearly fine for no insurance only $600, the only way the government can collect it is to take it out of your income tax refund, if you have one.
In addition, Obamacare is SAID to be focused on cost controls- yet it's only cost control measure is cutting reimbursement rates like Medicare - which is help off every year by Congress. If the point were to actually control costs there would be more support for preventative measures instead of cutting them like the recent fracas over mammograms and prostate exams.
What do you think the REAL purpose of Obamacare is? To me, it seem more about increasing government regulation and control than about actually making anything better for citizens.

housingcasino4865 says

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

Diet is a huge contributer to many diseases and healthcare conditions. Obesity, smoking, and all the chemicals we place in our bodies are just some of the problems. But the results are still out on what nutrasweet and other chemicals are doing ot our bodies - and the external forces such as environmental causes of disease.

chemechie says

What do you think the REAL purpose of Obamacare is? To me, it seem more about increasing government regulation and control than about actually making anything better for citizens.

The purpose was to provide healthcare for everyone. The implementation was off, and until we have true socialzied medicine we're gonna have problems.

One of my medications - vital to my well-being - has been limited to four a month. If i have an episode, i need to limit it to four times a month. I've been to the emergency room because of this - and it cost $600. It'd be easier for them to pay the f'ing $50 it costs them, if that, to provide the medication I need.

They're killing me, the bastards!

housingcasino4865 says

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

Is this for real? Or is it a joke?

wthrfrk80 says

housingcasino4865 says

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

Is this for real? Or is it a joke?

I took it as a joke, or otherwise its too ignorant a statement to warrant a reply

The science is out there, read the links I posted, is a good place to start. We eat primarily local, fresh, fruits and veggies, along with nuts and animal protiens/fats. I have many friends and family that have begun to follow this form of diet.

I avoid gluten and sugar like the plague. They are highly toxic to humans and evidently animals as well. Pretty much take everything the herd "knows" about health and diet and do the opposite. The FDA food pyramid is more of a crime against humanity then hitler, UBL, kony etc combined

Harvard should be attacked as a terrorist entity for all the disinformation they perpetuate, and the so called science they muck. I don't need any bullshit scam "health" "insurance", because I properly fuel my body, hence I don't get sick

errc says

The FDA food pyramid is more of a crime against humanity then hitler, UBL, kony etc combined

That's a little extreme too, don't you think?

I really don't know who to believe anymore regarding diet. I just know that certain foods make me feel like shit after eating them: like cookies, doughnuts, pizza, and most fast food.

You might be gluten intolerant. I thought that was just a fad, but I did some experiments on myself, eating lots of gluten or no gluten for a week at a time each, and I'm pretty sure lots of gluten gives me the shits. Not eating gluten cures it.

It's possible to get your starches from rice, corn, potatoes, etc, but wheat is everywhere. Even knowing that something has gluten in it, I often eat it anyway. Totally worthwhile for certain desserts, pancakes, garlic bread, etc.

I mainly just "feel like shit" i.e. "feel bad" after eating those foods. I don't really notice it affecting my literal shits (except for, of course, Taco Bell).

One of the major problems I see is it does not create new doctors or nurses. So when the added work load hits those in the market it is not like they'll work faster to get to everyone.

Unless we start to reform the legal processes of licensing of doctors and nurses as well as how fast a drug clinical trial can be then we won't slow down health care costs.elliemae says

Diet is a huge contributer to many diseases and healthcare conditions. Obesity, smoking, and all the chemicals we place in our bodies are just some of the problems. But the results are still out on what nutrasweet and other chemicals are doing ot our bodies - and the external forces such as environmental causes of disease.

That is true. Very true but on the same argument it seems like we are treating people as if they are the banks again.

Socializing the losses (health care costs) but privatizing the gains (vices).
If someone smokes and we KNOW the costs are higher would it make more sense to get people to quit smoking before they get on medicare and medicade ? The same with every other addiction and obesity.

You have to know "health" "insurance" is a scam, in that they discriminate against smokers vs non-smokers, with higher rates, yet sugar consumers pay the same as those of us that don't consume the toxic drug

Patrick, why do you feel the need to "get your starches"?

People that aren't outwardly effected by gluten and sugar (don't put on fat), are paying the price on the inside. "Skinny fat" people suffer from bad health conditions just as bad as fat people, they just don't show it on the outside. Its why you hear the story of the 46 y.o in perfect health dropping dead of a heart attack out of nowhere.

Read the link in post 43

Other good reading

Good calories/bad calories by taubes (and for those less interested in reading in depth 400+ pages) why we get fat and what to do about it by taubes

Dr mercola has a solid site on the interwebs
Mark sisson - marksdailyapple.com

If you're not sure who to trust or what to eat, try eliminating things from your diet one at a time. I'm 30 and feel infinitely better then I did thru my 20's after adjusting my diet to nix out sugar and gluten. I still cheat once in awhile with a bowl of ice cream or some pizza and soda on occasion, but now that I know how it feels otherwise, I pay the price for indulging. Inflammation sucks

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

People will end up with medical insurance eating about 1/3rd to half of their income,

We're already at almost 1/4 of income. Premiums now average $15,000 per family out of $64,200 median family income, which is 23%.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il11/​medians2011_​sig.pdf for income

http://www.kff.org/insurance/092311nr.cfm for premiums