ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Schadenfreude for the suckers

I have absolutely no sympathy for these idiots. Absolutely none at all. Go cry a freaking river, along with the Ann Althouses, David Brooks and Peggy Noonans of the world, all of whom bought into the idea that the Detroit model would be a good one for America:
Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy.

“I was really shocked … all of my hopes were sort of dashed,” Wagner said. “’Oh my gosh President Obama, this is not what we hoped for, it’s not what we were told.’ “

She was shocked further to learn that for the same coverage she would pay 35 percent more and have a higher deductible. “Our premium for next year is going up to over $1,000 a month for two of us and we’re two fairly healthy individuals,” Wagner said.
This is just one minor Federal change to healthcare. Imagine how shocked and upset they are going to be when they finally realize what the long-term effects of the 60 millions immigrants, 50 million abortions, and 40 million additional women working they supported turn out to be.

Labels: ,

217 Comments:

1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Laramie Hirsch November 09, 2013 5:24 AM  

I love reading this stuff. It's been a joy.

I can't wait until next year, when everyone's group plans suffer. Yes, it will sting. But we've been preparing for this eventuality. Anyone who's been paying attention has been getting ready for this disaster. Namely by paying off debt.

But anyhow, everyone will be suffering next year when company group plans get to take their hit. And then, I'll get to see a lot of the surrounding liberals react.

My guess? They'll struggle to justify the hell they're putting themselves (and the rest of us) through.

Bah. Americans collectively deserve this. This and more.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 09, 2013 5:26 AM  

Playing a Sad Tune on Tiny Violin

Anonymous p-dawg November 09, 2013 5:28 AM  

Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Anonymous AdognamedOp November 09, 2013 5:51 AM  

Well, at least we got to witness America's transformation to total socialism comrades. Yeah, I know all about Wilson,FDR LBJ.. but this is the final stage. And quite an Historic event it is. I wish I could print up an appropiate T-shirt to commemorate it. I guess something ending in .."all I got was this lousy t-shirt" would work. Or not.
Bah.

Anonymous Word Spectator November 09, 2013 6:29 AM  

We need a new words: "schadensucker" and "schadenpwned."

Anonymous The Abe November 09, 2013 6:31 AM  

Am I the only one that found the silence of the insurance industry deafening when all this was kicking off?

Anonymous Vic November 09, 2013 6:31 AM  

She didn't perceive herself as one of those targeted bourgeoisie. A useful idiot indeed.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 09, 2013 6:37 AM  

Yesterday I pulled $5k in FRNs out of my credit union and maxed out my 5% cashback in junk silver. Time to stack more .45acp, 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62, keep a diversified portfolio..

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 09, 2013 6:37 AM  

Vic: "She didn't perceive herself as one of those targeted bourgeoisie. A useful idiot indeed."

Exactly.

Anonymous Word Spectator November 09, 2013 6:38 AM  

Let's use them in sentences.

schadensucker - noun - A person imbued with some quality or state that induces schadenfreude in others around them.

Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy. She is such a schadensucker.

schadenpwn - verb - The attack or act which turns one into a schadensucker.

That woman sure was schadenpwned in the ass by Obama good and hard after her insurance was canceled.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 7:03 AM  

I thought it was about 70 million extra working women. Either way, they shouldn't be allowed to vote, and to the extent they have female make-work jobs, they should be fired and their jobs eliminated.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 7:18 AM  

The policies that are being cancelled are the minimal coverage ones that don't meet some basic requirements. These two people look like they're 60-ish. $1000 per month for 60 year olds is actually not that exorbitant a price. I'm kind of surprise they're not paying more. So yeah, ACA is requiring people to upgrade to non-junk policies. I feel for them if their finances were really hinged on "just in case you're hit by a truck" type policies. But it's not the end of the world.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 09, 2013 7:23 AM  

Vox, not even one little tear as you sit looking out over the sea with a glass of fine wine in one hand?

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 7:24 AM  

I thought it was about 70 million extra working women.

No, you are forgetting that women have always worked. 70 million is the total. 40 million is the approximate number of women who would otherwise be focused on child-rearing and home-making based on the 1950s societal model.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 7:25 AM  

Vox, not even one little tear as you sit looking out over the sea with a glass of fine wine in one hand?

Not even one. Merely a grim half-smile and a gentle shake of the head.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 7:25 AM  

"The policies that are being cancelled are the minimal coverage ones that don't meet some basic requirements."

Such as?

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 7:28 AM  

o yeah, ACA is requiring people to upgrade to non-junk policies. I feel for them if their finances were really hinged on "just in case you're hit by a truck" type policies.

Those "junk policies" are the only policies that are more properly "insurance policies". You apparently don't understand the difference between "health insurance" and "healthcare services". Those people just wanted insurance but they're now being forced to prepay for services they never intended to use.

Typical liberal enforcement of policy through perversion of language. And it fools the suckers and slow-witted every time.

Anonymous Stingray November 09, 2013 7:35 AM  

And it fools the suckers and slow-witted every time.

It's easy to be a fool when you want to be.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 7:36 AM  

Such as?

High deductibles. Obamacare is eliminating the insurance aspect of health insurance. It's designed to prevent healthy people from betting on their continued good health and forcing them to pay into the system for services they don't need.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 7:39 AM  

According to ACA, military Tricare is considered "junk policy". I'm not kidding.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 7:40 AM  

Such as?

For instance, policies can no longer put caps on treatment, which many junk policies have done. For instance, you're in a car accident and later discover that your coverage only goes up to a quarter million, yet replacement of your spinal column (joke) requires a full million.

Other services that now must be covered include: ambulance service, emergency care, hospitalization, maternity care, mental health, substance abuse, prescription drug, rehabilitation, labs, preventive and wellness, chronic disease management, pediatric services (all the way to 26 yrs), oral and vision care. Pretty basic stuff. Any policy that insurance companies have not upgraded until now must be cancelled. In other worlds, Obamacare is now forcing insurance companies to upgrade their polices, unfortunately, now at a higher rate.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 7:41 AM  

Hitler has his insurance cancelled.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 7:43 AM  

Yup, because single men "need" maternity coverage and women "need" prostrate cancer coverage.

Anonymous Shutterbug November 09, 2013 7:44 AM  

Doesn't it suck to vote to get something for yourself paid for by someone else, and then learn you ARE Someone Else? I, too, have absolutely no sympathy.

I've been preparing for the implementation of Obamacare by educating myself on the medicinal properties of herbs, how to prepare and administer them, and have planted a medicinal herb garden on my property.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 7:45 AM  

"Obamacare is now forcing insurance companies to upgrade their polices, unfortunately, now at a higher rate."
I seem to remember Obama stating that the prices were going to go down (the affordable part). Is my memory faulty?

Anonymous The Deuce November 09, 2013 7:45 AM  

The new lib definition of a "junk" policy is one where you have a low premium, low deductible, and access to a wide network of doctors, but no coverage for heroin recovery for the heroin you've never used and never will. A "good" policy, meanwhile, is one where you couldn't afford to see a doctor because of your insane deductible, even if there were any decent ones within your network and driving distance, but you can get "free" birth control pills even if you can't actually use them.

Anonymous Steve November 09, 2013 7:46 AM  

’Oh my gosh President Obama, this is not what we hoped for, it’s not what we were told.’ “

He doesn't care. Get it through your head,libtards. this president is not like the other 40+ ones we had. Obvious from looking at him,isn't it? This one is a psychopath. He doesn't care about the Constitution. He doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about his "promises" which he knew were lies when he was making them. AND EVERYBODY TOLD YOU THAT IN 2012,YOU FUCKING FOOLS,but you were too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'waaaaaayyyyyyyccccissss' to listen to what the 48% of this country who still have common sense were saying.

For the last time,libtards, you are MORONS. You can't just do whatever you want, that isn't "progress",it's discarding all the things that have kept us wealthy and safe and free for 200 years so you can gaze adoringly at a black homosexual on tv every night.

Was it worth it? Is the $10k per year you're going to have to spend on your "free" pediatric dental care worth it? Is the 13.8% real unemployment rate worth it? Is the global instability your pet has caused,the likely war with Iran,the civil war in Syria, the thousands of dead Christians in Egypt worth it?

Were their lives and your life savings worth your homosexual African being president?

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 7:46 AM  

According to ACA, military Tricare is "inadequate".

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 7:48 AM  


High deductibles. Obamacare is eliminating the insurance aspect of health insurance. It's designed to prevent healthy people from betting on their continued good health and forcing them to pay into the system for services they don't need.


Yes, perhaps true, but of the things I mentioned, really the only ones under strict control are maternity (of course) and therefore pediatrics. You can't really control things like getting hit by a truck. True, if you want to run a health care like a Vegas casino, you keep the system we have, and people bet--you have the right word--on their health. And sometimes lose, at which point they declare bankruptcy (the single major cause of it), and then...wait for it, go on government assistance. So in the end we all get to pay for their gambling anyway.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 7:52 AM  

Those "junk policies" are the only policies that are more properly "insurance policies". You apparently don't understand the difference between "health insurance" and "healthcare services".

The pols use the terms interchangeably. It's a particularly insidious way to mis-frame the issue.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 7:54 AM  


A "good" policy, meanwhile, is one where you couldn't afford to see a doctor because of your insane deductible, even if there were any decent ones within your network and driving distance, but you can get "free" birth control pills even if you can't actually use them.


Yeah, once again, I get the point. I don't really understand the rationale for how coarse-grained the requirements are. It seems they could have done a better job at delivering more specific requirement for the insurance companies to work with.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 7:54 AM  

True, if you want to run a health care like a Vegas casino, you keep the system we have, and people bet--you have the right word--on their health. And sometimes lose, at which point they declare bankruptcy (the single major cause of it), and then...wait for it, go on government assistance. So in the end we all get to pay for their gambling anyway.

That's what insurance is, TGM. Betting. What Obamacare is providing is the end of insurance. And what you're missing is that insurance meant that people adjusted their behavior in accordance with the bets they were making.

As they always do, the socialist plan will fail and produce unintended consequences because it is designed on the basis of a static situation that will, by definition, be unable to account for the dynamic response to its changes in incentives.

And you and everyone else who supports it as a sensible solution will be genuinely surprised....

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 7:55 AM  

I'm quoting VD in the first sentence of my post above.

Anonymous Steve November 09, 2013 8:00 AM  

'The policies that are being cancelled are the minimal coverage ones that don't meet some basic requirements. So yeah, ACA is requiring people to upgrade to non-junk policies."

If Obamacare is such a great insurance plan, then how come Obama,Congress, and all their buddies granted themselves exemptions from it? I think their health insurance is junk, according to you, that means I get to tell them what kind they can have. I say they suck on a big fat load of Obamacare and EVERYONE ELSE gets exemptions. You were the ones who wanted it. YOU use it.

YOU are not the boss of anyone. You can't even run your own lives right,let alone anyone else's. When we get the chance to do it, I will personally throw my support behind putting you people in GULAGS for trying to take away the freedoms of others. Life,liberty,and pursuit of happiness are "junk inalienable rights". Everyone except for libtards gets an ex

Anonymous Steve November 09, 2013 8:03 AM  

"Everyone except for libtards gets an exemption and libtards get the gulag.*

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 8:14 AM  

"It's easy to be a fool when you want to be."

Yup, Anyone who couldn't see this fiasco coming didn't want to.

Anonymous wcu November 09, 2013 8:16 AM  

Poor fucking bewilderd nursey; someone help her understand the world she helped create.

Anonymous wcu November 09, 2013 8:22 AM  

Oh, and to the all poeeerful NSA agent lurking about, go fuck yourself too darling

Anonymous Sigyn November 09, 2013 8:23 AM  

"Basic stuff?" Most of the things you list are things most people never need, or can arrange cheaply for themselves. ("Buy one pair of glasses, get one free!" for instance. Watch that go away, though...)

Martini, be honest with yourself. Obamacare is designed to force the maximum number of people into a pool where they literally do not belong (much less want to be) so that the insurance companies can spread the unusual, larger claims over a wider base, and therefore lose less money or none at all. This is corporate welfare done on the sly, not charity. Why do you think they're now getting to charge people double and triple what they once would have charged and Obama is fine with that?

You talk about Vegas, but this IS Vegas-style gambling: designed so the house always wins. Welcome to Mafia politics, Chicago-style.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 8:25 AM  


That's what insurance is, TGM. Betting. What Obamacare is providing is the end of insurance. And what you're missing is that insurance meant that people adjusted their behavior in accordance with the bets they were making.


If there were no preexisting socialist mechanisms I can see where health insurance might be left to strict individualism, like most other types of insurance. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live in that world, but at least I can see the logic. But health care has always been a special case, mostly because humans are averse to allowing others to die in front of them. You can plow your car into a wall and everyone will be happy to let the dice and your car insurance fall where they may, but letting a child die from kidney failure in front of them when there's a perfectly good, but expensive, dialysis center next door is always going to be different. This is why there's no call to nationalize car insurance and why health care is always going to operate by different rules, and not strictly market rules.

I know it's a chore and like getting blood out of stone, but eventually I think the Right is going to finally have to choke out the words "the market isn't the ideal solution here...aaarch!"

Anonymous MrGreenMan November 09, 2013 8:26 AM  

@TGM

I'm not sure what you considered junk. I had a 0/100 coinsurance policy that just happened to have a $5k deductible, and I had to pay for office visits, of which I've made one in three years. It covered everything else Blue Cross covered.

Now, that policy and that company were driven out of the market. I have had the fourth replacement policy survive with alterations from the Wicked Witch, so now it is over twice the monthly premium, it is a $500 deductible now, and office visits are covered to some degree, although the big thing they did was to establish the hike on single males as part of this great equalization of things before the federal throne.

Number of office visits since? None
Amount put against that $500 deductible? Nothing

So, because you want to give more money to the insurance companies so you feel good at night knowing Warren Buffet has Jergens, and you want to take away the right of people to set up their own life because of your need for socialism (really, isn't your claim that because of the socialism, we need more socialism and more control?), I now have to pay $250/mo instead of $100/mo for the exact same health insurance value to me.

And, yes, I obtained an open line of credit at a local credit union (while self-employed, mind you) and set it aside with the original plan. Oddly enough, it was sized right at that $5k deductible, and, with a very cheap ($14/mo) AFLAC-like insurance policy, for a grand total of $114/mo, I wouldn't have had to pay that deductible in the event there was a calamity, because you used to be able to set up things like this. Then, you people went about "fixing it" to control people.

Anonymous Salt November 09, 2013 8:29 AM  

And you and everyone else who supports it as a sensible solution will be genuinely surprised....

They'll have mental health care. It's obvious why it was included.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 09, 2013 8:31 AM  

Yup, because single men "need" maternity coverage and women "need" prostrate cancer coverage.

I'm so tired of you cis-normative people being transphobic. Do you ever think of those people? FIVE PEOPLE A YEAR probably suffer because of you.


Everything about this Obamacare smacks of the old twentieth century. It is so old "industrial age" feeling. The massive centralization. The socialism. The half-assed government website. The premise of the old-style retirement plans. The welfare redistribution with the insurance plans.


The first efforts for universal coverage in the US were with Theodore Roosevelt pushing it in 1912. This was coming off the GIlded Age with the massive industrialization and resulting immense gaps in the social classes. Sound familiar?


This doesn't feel new.

It feels old.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2013 8:31 AM  

Having just checked the Tricare site, Tricare is apparently adequate, except for certain classes of people who don't really have normal Tricare, dependent parents, reserve component types who get only line of duty care, that sort of thing. If someone has different information, I would be _most_ interested.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 8:32 AM  


Obamacare is designed to force the maximum number of people into a pool where they literally do not belong (much less want to be) so that the insurance companies can spread the unusual, larger claims over a wider base, and therefore lose less money or none at all.


I'm with you but probably for exactly the opposite reason. Hey, look, I was for the public option. As far as I'm concerned, ACA has yet to prove to me it's not a massive insurance company handout. The insurance companies always seem to come out on top no matter what happens.

Blogger Glen Filthie November 09, 2013 8:32 AM  

What is it with Althouse anyway?

She is one of the few bloggers who I just can't get a read on. I dunno how many times I've read something she's written and sat back and wondered: is this woman a cunned stunt or does she know something I don't?

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 8:34 AM  

"mostly because humans are averse to allowing others to die in front of them"

Straw man not withstanding, Obamacare will incentiveize the exacerbation of the problems it purports to fix.

Anonymous YIH November 09, 2013 8:35 AM  

@cmate:
"The policies that are being cancelled are the minimal coverage ones that don't meet some basic requirements."

Such as?

First, maternity coverage for all (yes, including men as well as females who due to age or sterilization infertile) as well as:
Expect Another Leap in Healthcare Costs; New Obamashock Rules: Obamacare Expanded to Cover Mental Health and Addiction
As in whatever the mental health/substance abuse treatment *ahem* ''profession'' deems appropriate (as in capable of being billed to 0bamacare)

Anonymous Sigyn November 09, 2013 8:38 AM  

but letting a child die from kidney failure in front of them when there's a perfectly good, but expensive, dialysis center next door is always going to be different.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept called "charity". We used to have it. It's where you take your own money/time/services and give it to someone you think needs it. It was a fine and ennobling thing; nobody MADE anyone give anything, they just gave, and they gave a lot. There were private hospitals, orphanages, and even mental asylums. Heck, middle-class and upper-class women actually did a lot of charity work after their kids grew up (you know, before they discovered the freedom and joy of working for a greedy corporation).

Of course, the little weak point there was that those charities were run by Christians. Christians kind of had a corner on the whole "charity" thing, and the government just can NOT be outdone. So they came up with the idea of doing "charity" with everyone ELSE'S money, took it at gunpoint, and then found out that they could do half the work at three times the cost--which is obviously superior.

The funny thing is, those backwards right-wingers still haven't figured out that it's the government's job to do charity now, which is why they continue to give privately more than liberals do.

Anonymous Harsh November 09, 2013 8:38 AM  

The insurance companies always seem to come out on top no matter what happens.

I think we have our winning answer.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 8:41 AM  

Kathleen Sebelius: Convicted felons could be Obamacare navigators

Anonymous The Great Martini November 09, 2013 8:41 AM  

@MrGreenMan

You may not like socialism, but I think we can both agree that crony capitalism masquerading as socialism is even worse. Like I say, I suspect ACA is a massive insurance company handout.

About your previous policy: one that bad had to have a cap on treatment too, I suspect.

Blogger IM2L844 November 09, 2013 8:42 AM  

It's going to be interesting when there is enough data available to calculate the population's overall reduction in discretionary funds and how that may affect the economy. I also expect the heavily subsidized category with low copays and low deductibles to produce a steady stream of not only hypochondriacs mucking up the works and people trying to use various physical as well as mental health issues to get on the disability gravy train, but also pissed off people bound and determined to get their money's worth. This system is begging to be defrauded.

I can't see this being anything other than the disastrous proverbial straw for the economy.

Anonymous Sigyn November 09, 2013 8:43 AM  

I'm with you but probably for exactly the opposite reason.

Unless you've changed your mind in the last few minutes, this indicates you are not:

But it's not the end of the world.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 09, 2013 8:43 AM  

This is why there's no call to nationalize car insurance …

Yet.
Just wait, Hoss. Just wait…

Anonymous MrGreenMan November 09, 2013 8:45 AM  

@TGM

The exact same cap on treatment that Blue Cross had: $5 Million lifetime.

I don't disagree with you that American fascism is worse than straightforward socialism, because there's a cost with the pretense, I just hate the decision coming down to being boiled alive while having my fingers twisted or being boiled alive while having my balls slow crushed in a vice, and being insulted on top of it all by being told obvious lies about how this is going to help me.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 09, 2013 8:47 AM  

Kathleen Sebelius: Convicted felons could be Obamacare navigators

That's another old industrial-age premise Obamacare is making.

They are still thinking of the old days when you had paper files, where you had to actually go into the filing cabinet and get the medical data. See also: Nixon hiring people to break into the filing cabinet to get at Elsberg's psych records. That kept your medical records a lot safer, because you needed a physical copy.

They have not come to terms with digitization, so can't keep the data safe on the website.

Blogger AdognamedOp November 09, 2013 8:52 AM  

"but letting a child die from kidney failure in front of them when there's a perfectly good, but expensive, dialysis center next door is always going to be different."

Ahh, the chilrenn..., always the chilren.... Fuck off.

Anonymous RC November 09, 2013 8:52 AM  

At least for now, the Christian medical sharing plans have escaped all of this and can be set up for very high deductible (I have $10K deductible) so they track more closely with traditional insurance, along with some discounts with providers, and very low monthly fees, $250/month for a family of five. I use Medishare based in FL if anyone is interested.

Blogger Brad Andrews November 09, 2013 8:53 AM  

but letting a child die from kidney failure in front of them when there's a perfectly good, but expensive, dialysis center next door is always going to be different.

Tough story, though it ignores the fact that you don't have a right to steal other people's money and goods just because of a tough situation.

Private property is the underlying key to a successful society, even in the tough cases. Far more will suffer under a socialized system. Where are all your tough stories of that?

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 8:56 AM  

They were told what was going to happen. Many times. By many people. But everything is political to these people, and the very idea that someone could be saying something because it's true rather than because it's for a political purpose is lost on them.

> $1000 per month for 60 year olds is actually not that exorbitant a price.

Then why don't you run right down and offer to pay it for them TGM? It's not "exorbitant" after all. Oh, that's right. You're only profligate with OTHER people's money.

> It seems they could have done a better job at delivering more specific requirement for the insurance companies to work with.

You know why as well as we do. The system is designed to fail so it can be replaced with single payer.

> The funny thing is, those backwards right-wingers still haven't figured out that it's the government's job to do charity now...

Some of us figured that out years ago. I still give to charity, but not at the level I would if the government didn't take my money in charity's name.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 09, 2013 8:57 AM  

The kidney example is stupid. Dialysis costs are coming down, and there's always artificial kidneys on the way, both mechanical and biological.

Anonymous Gaytards November 09, 2013 8:57 AM  

Central planning will work... this time. FOR THE CHILDREN.

Anonymous Harsh November 09, 2013 8:59 AM  

True, if you want to run a health care like a Vegas casino, you keep the system we have, and people bet--you have the right word--on their health. And sometimes lose, at which point they declare bankruptcy (the single major cause of it), and then...wait for it, go on government assistance. So in the end we all get to pay for their gambling anyway.

We're going to "pay for their gambling anyway" because there's far too much government assistance to begin with. The solution is not to throw up your hands and say we're going to pay for it anyway. The solution is to demand a stop to overreaching social programs that we all pay for whether or not we need or want them.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 9:05 AM  

"You may not like socialism, but I think we can both agree that crony capitalism masquerading as socialism is even worse."

I agree crony capitalism is bad but socialism as it has ever been practiced is a step in the wrong direction, a big one. With Obamacare single payer is the intermediate goal and when that happens total takeover is inevitable.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2013 9:07 AM  

You can demand anything, Harsh. You, personally, and like minded people, too, can demand anything. But if you and they, collectively, lack the power to force what you demand, you are not going to get it. Hence, no, the demand is not a solution.

Personally, I am hard put to find any likely solutions that are not just fantasies.

Anonymous Harsh November 09, 2013 9:16 AM  

I totally understand what you're saying, Tom, and maybe I'm being a bit naive in believing that speaking up in and of itself will accomplish anything, but I do get tired of the "we're screwed either way" attitude that The Great Martini expressed.

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2013 9:20 AM  

Those "junk policies" are the only policies that are more properly "insurance policies". You apparently don't understand the difference between "health insurance" and "healthcare services". Those people just wanted insurance but they're now being forced to prepay for services they never intended to use.

Typical liberal enforcement of policy through perversion of language. And it fools the suckers and slow-witted every time.


Concise, accurate, comprehensive. This response sums up the entire Obamacare mess and the fools who supported it.

Anonymous frenchy November 09, 2013 9:24 AM  

@ Dr. Kenneth Noisewater,

Your stockpile makes no mention of .22LR. Get 10s of thousands, then get a suppressor. CCI sells subsonic ammo as well.

Buy what you can now before it's all illegal.

Blogger cmate November 09, 2013 9:24 AM  

"...but I do get tired of the "we're screwed either way" attitude that The Great Martini expressed. "

Me too, but realistically, America elected a guy who spit in their faces, all for free contraceptives. And we elected him again after he made the economy worse than it was when he took office. I'm not optimistic.

Anonymous YIH November 09, 2013 9:27 AM  

TontoBubbaGoldstein:
This is why there's no call to nationalize car insurance …

Yet.
Just wait, Hoss. Just wait…

Such a scheme was proposed 20 years ago in (of course) Calipornia.

Anonymous JN November 09, 2013 9:30 AM  

Am I the only one that found the silence of the insurance industry deafening when all this was kicking off?

Who do you think wrote the ACA?

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2013 9:31 AM  

Personally, I am hard put to find any likely solutions that are not just fantasies.

Repeal is possible in a few years, but unlikely since both parties will be endlessly campaigning on "fixing" or "improving" Obamacare. For a greater chance of success, I would recommend passing a "safe harbor" plan that is basically a major medical/catastrophic coverage insurance that can be sold by an insurer in all 50 states without any regulation at the state level and that is exempt from Obamacare requirements. It isn't perfect from a federalist perspective, but it may be the only type of patch that could be passed (assuming Democrats can't kill it in the Senate or WH).

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2013 9:34 AM  

At least for now, the Christian medical sharing plans have escaped all of this and can be set up for very high deductible (I have $10K deductible) so they track more closely with traditional insurance, along with some discounts with providers, and very low monthly fees, $250/month for a family of five.

Hopefully the court lets the religious exemptions survive.

Anonymous LL November 09, 2013 9:35 AM  

I found this part the most ironic:

“The whole plan was to get everyone enrolled so there’s a larger risk pool and our costs go down,” she said. “Wow, not at all what we’re seeing.”

That only works if the disincentives (the "fine" you pay for not signing up) are equal to the lowest charges of the cheapest plan available. I don't even know how they came up with the $95 (or 1% income) fine/tax they imposed for the first year, but women like this obviously didn't understand how it all works.

Here is a perfect example of economic disincentives. The guy had insurance. It is being canceled. With his newly discovered cancer, he'd rather let the cancer run its course than financially ruin the family. I'd feel doubly bad except he says he voted for Obama so...

By the way, I had concerns about skin cancer but I wouldn't go see the doc (pay out of pocket) so I wouldn't have any pre-existing condition on record. Insurance companies can't deny coverage but they can ding you hard on premiums, but obviously not enough to offset the costs to the risk-pooled kitty. Another reason why that woman's statement quoted above is so funny.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2013 9:39 AM  

Brecht, red though he was, had the right of it: we must elect a new people.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2013 9:43 AM  

I mean overall, what we might call "strategic" solutions, Stilicho. Sure, we can apply any number of bandaids to any given problem, but they're just bandaids, not solutions. Meanwhile, under the bright rainbow colored bandaids with the "yes we can" logo, the gangrene continues to fester.

Anonymous YIH November 09, 2013 9:43 AM  

@Roundtine:
Hopefully the court lets the religious exemptions survive.
Considering the way the court(s) are these days my money is on ''not''

Anonymous buzzcut November 09, 2013 9:48 AM  

Think of the children, RIGHT NOW, or I'm going to put a bullet through your brain.

Anonymous allyn71 November 09, 2013 9:50 AM  

What is the woman bitching about? Obama said he was sorry. A man as great as O feels bad for a pissant like her and she still has the nerve to complain?

Can't wait for the camps to open up, there she will learn the true generosity of dear leader and be appreciative for it.

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2013 9:53 AM  

Brecht, red though he was, had the right of it: we must elect a new people.

This has been the left's demographic plan for some time. It's why they've gone full Mexican. Never go full Mexican!

At any rate, the libertarian/conservative response should be in part in the indoctrination complex: remove your children from the camps and homeschool them (even if you live in a "good" school district), then fight like hell to defund the camps and the unions that feed on them. In other words, make sure your children aren't turned into part of the new people of the left and attack the left's ability to infect others. Secondly, make people pay for supporting third world invasions of this country. Those who support it can be outed, shamed, deprived of money, deprived of society, etc. A business hires immigrants, boycott it, attack it, etc. A church supports illegal invasions, shame it for not helping them in their own country, etc. Politicians, the same.

It must be a multi-front, multi-generational attack to succeed.

Or you can wait for the inevitable collapse and try to build something better from the wreckage. Prudence would dictate trying the first option, but being prepared for latter.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 9:59 AM  

You can plow your car into a wall and everyone will be happy to let the dice and your car insurance fall where they may, but letting a child die from kidney failure in front of them when there's a perfectly good, but expensive, dialysis center next door is always going to be different.

And again, what you're failing to recognize is that due to your inability to let the kid die from kidney failure that he and his parents can't afford, there aren't going to be any kidney dialysis machines available to the kid, his family, or anyone who isn't politically connected in the future.

You subscribe to magical thinking. Because you can't grasp the connections between cause and effect, you kill the goose with the golden eggs because it only lays enough for half the people, not everyone.

If you just let the kid die now, 50 years from now all the kids will have access to such treatment. But you're determined to save the kid now, so you're going to sentence hundreds of kids to death in the future. This is unfortunately typical of those with short-time preferences.

Anonymous Cretin November 09, 2013 10:00 AM  

"Those "junk policies" are the only policies that are more properly "insurance policies". You apparently don't understand the difference between "health insurance" and "healthcare services". Those people just wanted insurance but they're now being forced to prepay for services they never intended to use."

The 12,000 a year they now pay is a bargain for pair of 60 year olds. But the first time something goes wrong and they have to have a CTscan, then blood work and a couple of prescriptions, they've gone well over $12K. Add a couple check ups to that and you are over the amount.

Or consider the pregnant 25 year old woman, staying at home while her husband goes out and makes $50K per year. Pre natal exams, ultra sounds, at least 6 visits to the doctor during pregnancy. Delivery. Mother in hospital for only a day after delivery. Child in the hospital for the same amount of time. And all this assumes things go perfectly. She's probably paying about $250 per month for insurance. Maybe $400. $5000 doesn't come close to covering her bills.

Its a deal!

Anonymous Cretin November 09, 2013 10:05 AM  

"Such as?

High deductibles. Obamacare is eliminating the insurance aspect of health insurance. It's designed to prevent healthy people from betting on their continued good health and forcing them to pay into the system for services they don't need."

Which allows coverage or many more people. But you are the person who is willing to see other people's kid's die not because they can't be saved but only because they can't afford it. So I'm guessing that the idea of more people not worrying about the cost of staying healthy doesn't have an effect on you. That's find. We know where you stand. "Kill the other kids, fuck'em. But fix my kid!"

Anonymous Giraffe November 09, 2013 10:08 AM  

Its a deal!

Sure it is. Because a half dozen other families are getting screwed paying for maternaty coverage they don't need. Like me.

Anonymous harry12 November 09, 2013 10:16 AM  

frenchy November 09, 2013 9:24 AM
@ Dr. Kenneth Noisewater,

Your stockpile makes no mention of .22LR. Get 10s of thousands, then get a suppressor. CCI sells subsonic ammo as well.

Buy what you can now before it's all illegal.


I see that non-lead ammunition is available.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2013 10:17 AM  

And all this assumes things go perfectly. She's probably paying about $250 per month for insurance. Maybe $400. $5000 doesn't come close to covering her bills.

Yeah, but you're making the same mistake I see liberals making a lot. You have to add up the annual insurance costs. If she get's pregnant twice in 10 years and it costs $10,000 each time, that's $20,000. If they save $5,000 a year for 10 years, that's $50,000.

The vast majority of people can pay for their own healthcare. If they couldn't, there'd be no way for government to provide it because they're taking other people's money to pay for it.

Anonymous harry12 November 09, 2013 10:18 AM  

Of course, non-lead ammo being lead free !

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 10:18 AM  

Obamacare to get even worse because the pResident want to curb gun violence without removing the vibrants who cause most of it.

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 10:18 AM  

Cretin November 09, 2013 10:00 AM

Or consider the pregnant 25 year old woman, staying at home while her husband goes out and makes $50K per year. Pre natal exams, ultra sounds, at least 6 visits to the doctor during pregnancy. Delivery. Mother in hospital for only a day after delivery. Child in the hospital for the same amount of time. And all this assumes things go perfectly. She's probably paying about $250 per month for insurance. Maybe $400. $5000 doesn't come close to covering her bills.

Its a deal!


As recently as 2008, you are completely mistaken. $5000 was about what we spent to have our last child. That's because we could not afford insurance at the time so we actually saved up for the birth, and made deals with the hospital and doctor ahead of time. It's amazing what they will lower their price to if you pay cash up front. Kinda puts the actual costs vs. bureaucracy in perspective, eh?

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 10:20 AM  

> But you are the person who is willing to see other people's kid's die not because they can't be saved but only because they can't afford it.

Absolutely. Isn't that why the various government agencies and mandated fees take around 40% of my paycheck? To prevent such things? It's not my problem. They promised me they'd take care of it.

> But fix my kid!

I don't have any kids to fix.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 10:21 AM  

A cretin says:

We know where you stand. "Kill the other kids, fuck'em. But fix my kid!

And we all know that is where Obama stands as well, because we all know which school he sends his kids to.

People like you and him are such hypocrites.

Anonymous Sigyn November 09, 2013 10:22 AM  

Or consider the pregnant 25 year old woman, staying at home while her husband goes out and makes $50K per year. Pre natal exams, ultra sounds, at least 6 visits to the doctor during pregnancy. Delivery. Mother in hospital for only a day after delivery. Child in the hospital for the same amount of time.

Unless she's a Strep B carrier--which is more common than you think--or unless the hospital comes up with some excuse like "SIDS risk". Then it's a three-day inpatient stay. ((I've been doing my homework on this, since it's only a couple months away...))

And all this assumes things go perfectly. She's probably paying about $250 per month for insurance. Maybe $400. $5000 doesn't come close to covering her bills.

Except her husband already had insurance--and it was cheaper before their policy was weighed in the ACA balance, found wanting, and terminated.

Anonymous cecilhenry November 09, 2013 10:23 AM  

Socialism destroys nations and lives. Eventually you run out of other peoples money.

Racial socialism is even worse.

Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everyone???

That is Genocide.

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 10:25 AM  

The Great Martini November 09, 2013 8:32 AM
As far as I'm concerned, ACA has yet to prove to me it's not a massive insurance company handout.

Oh bravo! Such intellectual honesty! And I'm guessing you'll say we needed to do it anyway, because it's just a step towards single-payer. So it's OK to let the most massively profitable industry in the country (low-risk, high-profit, captive customers) bleed us dry of any remaining middle-class wealth, because in the end at least everyone will get the same miserable 3rd-world medical care?

Among other things, what this move does is remove just another aspect of anything to aspire to in life. Why bother? I'm sure we won't see millions just give up at working hard to support our economy in the face of this.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 10:30 AM  

The pResident is on record as saying:

"By the way, Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step. "

It is amusing that like the pResident with the education of his kids, Canadians who can afford it do not rely on their single-payer system for medical care. They hop across the border to the US and pay for it.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn November 09, 2013 10:31 AM  

"...forcing them to pay into the system for services they don't need."

Which allows coverage or many more people.


Oh, I should open a garage.

"Yes, I know you didn't have any problems with your transmission, but a lot of people who come in here do, and they can't afford to have their transmissions repaired. And who knows? In the future, you might just have transmission problems yourself."

"But I don't even have a car! I just stopped in to have my bicycle tires inflated!"

"Oh, stop being so selfish. You know, some of these cars might be needed to run a child to the emergency room. But you are the person who is willing to see other people's children die not because they can't be saved but only because they can't afford a working transmission. You monster! I should charge you double for your insensitivity and greed!"

Anonymous Anonymous November 09, 2013 10:34 AM  

And a woman needs modern maternity care for exactly what purpose? It was designed strictly for high risk pregnancies and now the same invasive procedures have been applied to everyone. You can have a midwife deliver at home for next to nothing.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2013 10:41 AM  

Stilicho: I didn't say _which_ new people, now did I? Nor which people would get _un_elected. Or simply executed.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2013 10:43 AM  

And a woman needs modern maternity care for exactly what purpose? It was designed strictly for high risk pregnancies and now the same invasive procedures have been applied to everyone. You can have a midwife deliver at home for next to nothing.

It is not hard to figure out why the U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare than Europe and Canada, and yet sees only slightly better outcomes. If people understand healthcare they would call it what it is: a bubble. There is a healthcare bubble in America and it needs to be popped. The way to pop it is to spend less money on healthcare, not more. Spending more is the exact opposite of how you lower costs. This doesn't even enter the realm of economics or algebra, it is 1 + 1 =2. According to Obamacare and its supporters, 1 + 1 = 0. Bless their hearts.

Anonymous A little slow this morning November 09, 2013 10:50 AM  

>"If you just let the kid die now, 50 years from now all the kids will have access to such treatment. But you're determined to save the kid now, so you're going to sentence hundreds of kids to death in the future."

Could Vox or someone explain this further? I am not quite following it.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 10:51 AM  

Tom, don't worry, I think that climate will sort things out.

Funny how it looks like it will be the opposite of what stupid people were worrying about.

Anonymous AlteredFate November 09, 2013 10:53 AM  

"If you love benefits more than Liberty, free services more than Freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your council or your arms. May your chains rest lightly upon your backs, may you crouch and lick the hands that feed you, and may future generations forget that you were ever called 'Americans'."

Anonymous A little slow this morning November 09, 2013 10:54 AM  

Roundtime, what is your solution?

Anonymous hausfrau November 09, 2013 11:00 AM  

“Our premium for next year is going up to over $1,000 a month for two of us and we’re two fairly healthy individuals,” Wagner said.
It would appear Comrade Wagner believes she should get special pricing based on the merits of her individual situation. Her re-education is incomplete. Back to the camps for her.
Health insurance should be like dining a la carte at a restaurant. You pick the features that suit your situation. If something happens outside of your plan's features, that you picked, that's called consequences. Consequences produce incentives to choose wisely. Please don't remove consequences. It's for the children.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2013 11:00 AM  

Looks to me like Al Gore - AKA Pope Prius the First - has been spreading the Gore Effect around, TOS.

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 11:06 AM  

A little slow this morning November 09, 2013 10:50 AM

>"If you just let the kid die now, 50 years from now all the kids will have access to such treatment. But you're determined to save the kid now, so you're going to sentence hundreds of kids to death in the future."

Could Vox or someone explain this further? I am not quite following it.


Economics, competition and profit motive. If you remove competition and incentive from the equation, why is anyone going to bust his ass to come up with a better solution to our medical technology problems?

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 11:06 AM  

Seniors getting the ACA message

Anonymous VD November 09, 2013 11:07 AM  

Which allows coverage or many more people. But you are the person who is willing to see other people's kid's die not because they can't be saved but only because they can't afford it.

Of course. And so are you. So is everyone who spends a dime on anything but health care for other people's kids. As I pointed out to TGM, you have no understanding of cause and effect.

Parents are willing to scrimp and save for their own children. Like you, they are unwilling to lift a finger for other people's childrens. You deny this basic reality at your, and everyone else's, peril. That is why the left's policies always fail. Always.

Could Vox or someone explain this further? I am not quite following it.

If there is no market, and therefore no profit, in creating new medical technology and providing services based upon it, then the technology is not invented or maintained. And the services can't be provided to everyone, so in the end, they are provided to no one except those able to control the system to their liking. If you don't differentiate on the basis of price, you will ration on some other basis. And, without using prices, you can't generate profits, so the market stagnates.

In places like Holland, Canada, and the UK, you can't pay for many expensive treatments available in the USA. You can't get them at all.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 11:07 AM  

Vox..... "Those people just wanted insurance but they're now being forced to prepay for services they never intended to use."

Excellent summary.
Obama makes drug and alcohol detox "affordable" by forcing virtually everyone to pay a portion of their premium for the few who will actually use the service. The fact that a person does not use drugs or alcohol does not excuse them from helping to pay for the service, even though they will never need or require the services.

We need to stop using the word "insurance". This is not insurance. It is no longer about insurable risk and premiums are no longer determined by the likelihood of requiring the service (and the attendant costs). No more actuaries and no more "moral hazard". We are witnessing the virtual end of insurance, as understood for centuries. Yes, it is a big deal.

This is socialism. There is no other word to describe it.

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 11:15 AM  

VD November 09, 2013 11:07 AM

Could Vox or someone explain this further? I am not quite following it.

If there is no market, and therefore no profit, in creating new medical technology and providing services based upon it, then the technology is not invented or maintained. And the services can't be provided to everyone, so in the end, they are provided to no one except those able to control the system to their liking. If you don't differentiate on the basis of price, you will ration on some other basis. And, without using prices, you can't generate profits, so the market stagnates.

In places like Holland, Canada, and the UK, you can't pay for many expensive treatments available in the USA. You can't get them at all.


In other news, look for a huge increase in medical tourism.

Blogger Chiva November 09, 2013 11:15 AM  

Wagner and her husband are the type of people I have to deal with everyday. I don't have much sympathy for their type, especially after hearing day in and day out about their views on how their world should be run. Is it vindictive to feel somewhat happy about their distress?

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 11:25 AM  

The Great Martini....."Yes, perhaps true, but of the things I mentioned, really the only ones under strict control are maternity (of course) and therefore pediatrics. You can't really control things like getting hit by a truck. True, if you want to run a health care like a Vegas casino, you keep the system we have, and people bet--you have the right word--on their health. And sometimes lose, at which point they declare bankruptcy (the single major cause of it), and then...wait for it, go on government assistance. So in the end we all get to pay for their gambling anyway."

I am certain, were you not infatuated with Obama, you could imagine many alternative ways to arrange health insurance for the few who were uninsured and uninsurable, without adversely impacting every remaining citizen in this country.

No, maternity care is not the only difference between men and women health services. Pediatric care is for children and they have two parents in every case.

With large annual deductables, Obamacare has become nothing more than catastrophic coverage (not even accident coverage), which will actually assist in the health care costs of very few people. All of the howling about maternity care when very few will ever rise above the deductable. (Maternity care was already covered under Medicaid as "medically needy", where there was no premium, no deductible, no copayment of any kind.)

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother November 09, 2013 11:32 AM  

TGM,

One flaw in your thinking is the assumption that the system you thought was free market, and therefore unsustainable, was actually a government run system, and has been since 1965.

Surprise, surprise! The government health care system which has been masquerading as a free market system for the past forty plus years is breaking down.

How do we know the free market works f or health care? A very good example is Lasik eye surgery. Since patients can shop by price and service, guess what? The prices go down, the service gets better and technical immovations are frequent. Doctors compete for business by lowering prices and improving services. Yes, the market does work, Martini. You've just never seen it in action.

Blogger Chiva November 09, 2013 11:36 AM  

One thought on medical tourism. Looks like the hospital at the old Navy base in Subic bay, Philippines is planning to renovate and expand in the next year or two. It is getting more foriegners coming for surgeries.

Anonymous Harsh November 09, 2013 11:36 AM  

That's find. We know where you stand. "Kill the other kids, fuck'em. But fix my kid!"

Are you seriously using the "what about the kids" argument? Please, spare us.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2013 11:37 AM  

Roundtime, what is your solution?

Here's something that could work given the realities of gov't involvement. Health insurers can sell prepaid medical services if they want to, but they also can sell insurance and they can't conflate the two. The insurance will be real insurance: people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get cheap coverage for their specific condition, young women would not be able to buy maternity insurance, elderly would have trouble buying any cheap insurance. The insurance plans will all be high deductible, $10,000 or above.

Workers will have a portion of wages put into health savings accounts each year. The vast majority of people are going to do fine in this system. Saving $5,000+ per year, an individual will accumulate 200,000 in pure cash, assuming no return on their savings. When they are older they will pay a high price for insurance or they will pay out of pocket for expensive treatments. If they get lucky and don't become ill, they can pass the money onto their heir, give it to charity, whatever.

Poor people who work, but can't cover their deductible (insurance will be cheap), will get gov't reinsurance so they don't go broke. As people age, if they have preexisting conditions, or if they don't work, they move onto the gov't healthcare plan. However, this system is completely closed off, like the VA. Insurers and hospitals cannot and will not use their pricing schemes.

Medical providers will have to charge one price to all consumers for a given level of service. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma already does this and some procedures are several times cheaper than what insurance companies pay to hospitals, or what they try to charge individuals.

Under this system, most people will look at cost when spending their medical dollars. They will opt for cheaper services and cheaper medicine when it is available. Their doctors will also focus on care that meets the need and does not exceed it. Insurance will kick in for serious issues like cancer and heart attacks. There would be widespread job losses in the healthcare sector upon implementation. The economy would go into a recession at first, as workers were retrained and capital redeployed. The bulk of the job losses would fall on administrative workers. The system would not be "perfect" as there will always be people who need help, but the economy would grow faster and healthcare would fall as percentage of GDP and stay down. Overall, Americans would be richer and as healthy as they are today, if not healthier due to better lifestyle choices, since insurance companies could discriminate based on any conditions such as obesity, smoking, sexual lifestyle, etc.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 11:42 AM  

This guy thinks that a single payer system would not stifle health-care innovation.

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 11:42 AM  

Does anyone think that young black males running around shooting each other is going to be addressed by mental health coverage? What sort of causal mechanism are they seeing? I have encountered more than one liberal who thought murderers shouldn't be put in person because killing anyone was ipso facto definitive evidence that one was mentally ill. Their conclusion was that the mentally ill deserve mental health services, not punishment.

Of course, young black males shoot each other over turn and social status for the purposes of sexual competition. Don't see how access to mental health services is going to stop young men from looking to get laid.

Anonymous Harsh November 09, 2013 11:45 AM  

It is not hard to figure out why the U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare than Europe and Canada, and yet sees only slightly better outcomes.

Roundtine, the problem with comparing US and European/Canadian healthcare costs, it seems, is that in the Euro model you can't effectively determine what the true cost is because the system is heavily socialized. There's too much disconnect between the cost of the service and who's actually paying for it, so it's difficult to determine exactly how much per capita is actually being spent in those countries.

Anonymous A little slow November 09, 2013 11:49 AM  

Vox and rycamor

I understand profit motive as incentive to create new medical technology. What I don’t understand is how using taxpayer money to provide kidney dialysis for a child now is going to harm 50 children in the future. The inventor of the medical technology is getting paid. He still has incentive to create better technology to save children in the future. You can argue the immorality of taking someone’s money and giving it to someone else to provide that service, but that is a different issue.

If you’re arguing that a major problem with the ACA is price controls (as in Medicare), then I agree. This seems to eliminate the profit motive.

Or am I missing something?

Anonymous geoff November 09, 2013 11:52 AM  

why am i working and paying taxes, again?

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 11:55 AM  

I can understand Vox with a sad grimace, shaking his head. .
.
Being closer to the action here, I am somewhat more amused because the reality has not really sunk in yet with the Liberal yuppies. Yes, you know the ones......vegan diets, gluten free, organic vegetables, daily exercise (except sex), drinking 100% fruit juices (no sodas), no tobacco use and riding their bicycle to work every day. Guess what? Obamacare ignores all that crap. Does not matter what their BMI might be. Does not matter what they smoke, or reckless sex, or every imaginable bad (or dangerous) health habit. Their premiums have nothing to do with their health condition, or health status, or health habits.
.
This is the central problem with socialism and the main reason why you cannot have socialism without a police state. Once the health status and health condition of every person becomes a social concern, and less of a private responsibility, the police will be necessary to cause responsible behavior.....even if the individuals involved do not willingly comply. When society takes responsibility for your health care, they will also require you to conform to what they expect will minimize your need for health services. It does not matter what you want, or like, or enjoy, or feel......it is just dollars and cents......and the only dollars that count will be health care dollars.
.
So look for these "health conscious" individuals to go all-Bloomberg and nanny state to make all the fat slobs get with the program. These will be the food Nazis that will ban every imaginable substance, one at a time, except soylent green. They will also want fitness police to check on the obese, to make sure they are getting enough exercise.....maybe even send them to the fat farm to get their mind right. (Don't even start with me on the mental health aspects of socialized medicine. The Soviets were largely spared that part of the nightmare because the Party did not believe in psychiatry.)

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 11:58 AM  

A little slow...

Where exactly will be the incentive to improve a technology? If the provider and manufacturer have a captive clientele and everyone pays the same via the system, there is very little incentive to improve. With the existing system, there is more clientele if one comes up with a cheaper alternative.

That is the obvious prima facie effect. Secondarily, even if someone does come up with an improvement, government-run systems *always* play to the cadre of corporate giants that help them stay in power. The little guy with a new idea has very little opportunity to get in the door.

Yes, improvements will happen, in spite of this, but at nowhere near the rate they used to.

Anonymous Shorty November 09, 2013 12:02 PM  

"Or am I missing something?"

Yes. Liberals can't see past the immediate issue. It's not only a matter of the firm that's already produced the device getting to sell it. It's a matter of future firms having the incentive to enter markets, spending money to improve designs and technologies, etc; it's also a matter of the demand outstripping supply, the ability of hospitals and care providers to purchase the machines, the willingness of the government/insurance companies to pay for the services, and the number of persons who have incentives to join that particular labor force.

There is no incentive to invest in an industry with price ceilings, heavy regulation, and high barriers to entry.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 12:09 PM  

And women over 55 "need" maternity care. And its her coverage costs increased by $1000 a month. Not her cost is a thousand dollars a month.

Anonymous A little slow November 09, 2013 12:20 PM  

Shorty and Rycamor,

As noted earlier, I already understand that price controls (as in Medicare) and the institutionalization of services – doctors can charge only so much for a service and medical inventers are allowed only so much profit for their inventions – is a serious, long-term problem of the ACA. I just thought that there was something else in Vox’s example of the 50 dead children that I might have missed.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 12:33 PM  

> This guy thinks that a single payer system would not stifle health-care innovation.

He also probably thinks pigs can fly. But no one could possibly foresee the obvious consequences coming, now could they?

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 12:36 PM  

Animal Mother--

How do we know the free market works f or health care? A very good example is Lasik eye surgery. Since patients can shop by price and service, guess what? The prices go down, the service gets better and technical immovations are frequent. Doctors compete for business by lowering prices and improving services. Yes, the market does work, Martini. You've just never seen it in action.

This is exactly right. Cosmetic services are a great example of the market at work. Same thing is true of breast implants and other such things.

The real innovation will come when the shackles of the AMA come off the market. The primary reason why procedures cost so much more than they should is that specialists in the US are heavily protected by various protection rackets which keep their fees, and the associated hospital fees, very high.

The reality is that procedures like Lasik show that having a bona-fide MD with 7-10 years of education and training, plus additional specialty training, is not necessary. Lower-level medical technicians can perform many common procedures with no changes in outcomes, for a fraction of the cost.

Driving up demand for doctors by putting more people in insurance, long-term, pressures the artificial scarcity of doctors.

Anonymous hausfrau November 09, 2013 12:36 PM  


"This is the central problem with socialism and the main reason why you cannot have socialism without a police state"

Socialized health care is totalitarian.
These experts in the UK argue that overweight kids should be put in foster care until they loose weight. At least one UK family that lost custody of their youngest children permanently because of obesity. No other form of abuse, just their weight.
This is the real reason for socialized medicine. It's all about a pretense to control the most intimate aspects of a person's life. IT has nothing to do with actual healthcare.
"Fat children 'should be taken into foster care': Obesity expert points the finger at parents"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014070/Take-fat.html


"Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033486/Your-children-fat-again.html

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 12:40 PM  

My guess? They'll struggle to justify the hell they're putting themselves (and the rest of us) through.

Bah. Americans collectively deserve this. This and more.


We do deserve this, namely because the lady who is subject of the article, has been receiving a huge implicit subsidy in her insurance for years. And that is, if her insurance company drops her because she becomes too sick or costly, she is backstopped by Medicaid, and eventually Medicare.

The ACA is turning out to be better than I had hoped in making people realize the actual cost of their medical care. That is the key to bringing down costs. This lady had previously thought she was buying effective insurance, but it was a lie. Between tight regulation of what insurance is and preventing insurance companies from weeding out the risk pool, the right things are happening.

Anonymous Shibes Meadow November 09, 2013 12:41 PM  

A solution:

1. The president announces the end to all forms of government-funded healthcare/health insurance in a given target date. Federal regulation of private health care insurance essentially ends.

2. Each state establishes a Reinsurance Fund to replace its federally-funded programs.

3. In each county of a given state (call it State T), a County Charity Board (CCB) is chartered. Its membership consists of all 501 (c) 3 religious and charitable organizations in that county. This Board will be directly responsible for the provision of all "human services" within that county. Its funds come from the voluntary contributions of the rank and file of its member organizations.

4. In a given county (call it XYZ County), the Welfare Board assumes ownership of all public hospitals, clinics, etc. The County General becomes Charity General Hospital. Any person who walks into Charity General or one of its satellite clinics with a valid county ID gets treated. (Note that this ID card is issued and administered at the county level by the non-governmental Charity Board.)

5. Charity General and the clinics operate on a pay-as-you-go system. Since no public funding exists and few people have health insurance (i.e. the situation as it existed in the U.S. prior to the 1960s), the hospital and its doctors and nurses are usually paid in cash. This drives prices down quickly by encouraging market competition within the county and by eliminating massive layers of admin.

6. All county residents are treated at Charity General/clinics regardless of ability to pay. Those who can pay in full in cash do so. Those patients with steady income but who cannot pay in full are billed on a simple monthly basis, by court-ordered garnishee if necessary. (Note: county court, not state or federal.) Those who have no steady income are also treated. The cost of their care is billed to the State Reinsurance Fund, which covers the costs immediately with taxpayer money.

7. At the end of each fiscal year, the State of T Reinsurance Fund bills the XYZ County Charity Board for the expenditures it has made in XYZ County.

8. The XYZ County Charity Board refunds the money spent to the T State Reinsurance Board.

9. The XYZ County Charity Board bills its member organizations for their proportional share of their operating costs.

10. The State conducts a strict annual audit of each County Charity Board to keep the locals honest. They also keep up with all 501 (3) c entities to ensure that they join the County Charity Board. Any "religious or charitable organization" that refuses to cough up its share of funds to the local CCB, or fails to join, is reported by the State to the IRS.

Under this system, everyone who needs treatment gets it. Indigents are strictly means-tested (by the County Charity Board) to insure that a) they are truly indigent and b) they are legal residents of XYZ County and the State of T. The county's doctors and nurses operate on a cash basis with little overhead, ensuring a profit and true market pricing.

The beauty of the system lies in its subsidiarity. The State is involved only at the county level and only in the short term. Most of the unavoidable bureaucracy exists at the county level, and is private. not public, in nature. Doctors and nurses can go back to running their practices as they see fit. Best of all, all funding for the system ultimately comes from the churchgoers (etc.) of XYZ County.

I invite readers to point out any flaws in the system described above.

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 12:42 PM  

@ James Dixon

JayMan is a hard-headed and highly intelligent guy. I would suggest reading the post that was linked, as well as the comment section.

You might learn something.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 12:50 PM  

High deductibles. Obamacare is eliminating the insurance aspect of health insurance. It's designed to prevent healthy people from betting on their continued good health and forcing them to pay into the system for services they don't need.

This is only partly true. The included services provisions are DEFINITELY driving up costs. This is all designed, essentially, to solve one expensive problem, that Medicaid pays for over half of all births in the US. Expanding coverage to cover women/men equally puts the cost burden on private insurance and men to pay for births equally. A huge hidden cost.

The other thing that is really driving up costs is that in the past, especially for older folks (like the ones n the original article), is that insurance companies on the individual market never had to consider the true cost of a major illness or disease except for the term of the policy, because each year the policy could go through underwriting again, and the person dropped if they were too sick or costly. In those cases, the sick individual almost always ended up on governments nickel - through Medicaid, Medicare or simply as uncompensated care.

Now that insurance companies cant drop you once you are sick and can't increase cost-sharing past $6250 per person per year, and can't trim back coverage or services, the only option is to.. raise premiums.

You are exactly right that health insurance literally is nothing of sort. It is part insurance, part a pre-payment plan for routine medical services, and part buying club, to get discounts when you buy the way the group says you should (like Sam's club).

Obama told two important lies - that this would lower premiums - it certainly wont, and almost mathematically can't, and that you could keep your plan, which is also impossible.

However, I would say, on balance, the ACA is staggering good. It is forcing people who had been operating at a moral hazard of a government bailout to shoulder a great percentage of their actual care costs, and to assume a greater percentage of the actual risk. These people who are getting sticker shock, especially baby boomers, are now realizing that they do not have enough money to care for themselves into old-age. Their years of over consumption and reduced wealth creation have left them unable to provide for their own medical care.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 12:52 PM  

> JayMan is a hard-headed and highly intelligent guy.

Lots of highly intelligent people are still fools. It's always possible he's not arguing what the headline indicates, of course, but I have better things to do than waste my time finding out.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 09, 2013 1:03 PM  

I just thought that there was something else in Vox’s example of the 50 dead children that I might have missed.

Yes, I think there is. In a true free market system, the people who profit are the ones who manage to offer a better deal - better results, lower prices, some combination - to the bulk of the population. In a socialized, government regulated system, the people who profit are the people with the best connections in government.

So in the free market system, doctors and inventors profit. In the ObamaCare system, lobbyists and politicians profit. Energy and talent follow the money. So today there's a bright, high achieving 12 year old kid who might have gone to med school or gotten and engineering degree and created a machine or technique that cured kidney problems for good. Instead, he's going to go to law school or get some social-policy type degree and spend his life producing nothing at best, creating obstacles for the innovators at worst.

It's the difference between rewarding the guy who bakes the pie and the guy who slices the pie someone else baked. Do you want more pie bakers or pie slicers?

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 1:06 PM  

@ James Dixon

Reading the post and comments will probably take about 20 minutes. He discusses actual spending on healthcare R&D around the world and the comments section is a serious discussion of the post.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 09, 2013 1:23 PM  

Oh, you better believe Obamacare is "for the children." It's for all the children named Mohammad... and Aisha... and Khadijah... and Mohammed... and K'tashina... and Hector... and Pablo.. and Maria... and Maria... and Yolanda... and Maria... and Pablo... and Pedro.... and Muhammad... and Shitravious... and DeShawn... and Ngongo... and Mei-ling... and Ali... and Latrinacious... and Mohammad... and Maria... and Kwame.. and Maria... and Maria... and Maria... and Maria... and Maria... and Maria... and Maria...

And paid for by Bob and Annette, who now won't be able to to have any afford children named Kathy or Bob, Jr. Especially not Bob, Jr.

And of course, somewhere not so far away, Zvi and Tova are laughing their asses off.


Anonymous fish November 09, 2013 1:40 PM  

It is forcing people who had been operating at a moral hazard of a government bailout to shoulder a great percentage of their actual care costs, and to assume a greater percentage of the actual risk.

You're insane!

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 1:42 PM  

Jack-- the basic concept of medical R&D you bring up does not happen very much right now. There are very very many problems with how medical R&D happens, and not much of it is sensible. There is every incentive to treat diseases and almost none on curing them. And there are many incentives on treating them, but few on preventing them. The typical market forces that time and time again have produced lower costs, lower spending, and better outcomes in almost every field *can* act against those outcomes in medical technology and health care delivery.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 1:52 PM  

> Reading the post and comments will probably take about 20 minutes.

Which I don't have right now. I'm posting from work, in between work sessions.
Besides which, I wouldn't read an article which started with the headline, "Water is not wet", no matter who claimed it was an intelligent and important look at the subject. The two headlines are equivalent.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 09, 2013 1:59 PM  

Jack-- the basic concept of medical R&D you bring up does not happen very much right now...

I refer you to Animal Mother's comment:

One flaw in your thinking is the assumption that the system you thought was free market, and therefore unsustainable, was actually a government run system, and has been since 1965.

You also did not address my main point, which is that you get more of what you reward. We reward pie slicers more than pie bakers, so we get more slicers and fewer bakers. Fewer bakers means fewer pies. No good saying the new system will have better incentives for the pie slicers - the problem is the lack of incentives for the bakers.

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 2:07 PM  

@ James Dixon

Except "wet" is a qualitative perception. The post discusses that actual expenditures in quantitative measurements.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 2:09 PM  

It's the difference between rewarding the guy who bakes the pie and the guy who slices the pie someone else baked. Do you want more pie bakers or pie slicers?

Scalzi likes pie

Anonymous Godfrey November 09, 2013 2:14 PM  

I know people who voted for O-bomb-a. They actually - and this is no joke - believed they were going to get FREE healthcare.

These people actually believe the government can create something from nothing and give it to them "free". I'm NOT joking.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 2:14 PM  

Except "wet" is a qualitative perception. The post discusses that actual expenditures in quantitative measurements.

Why don't you provide a summary of those arguments if you agree with them or think they'd add to the discussion.

Anonymous geoff November 09, 2013 2:19 PM  

@Shibes Meadow,

Your doctoral thesis length post above fails on its initial premise: Obama isn't looking to "fix" health care. He's looking to control every aspect of your life.

Eh, it's not even Obama. He's doing what he's told. Socialism is a giant disaster UNLESS you're rich and/or politically connected at the beginning of the implementation. Then it's a decades-long E-ticket ride for you and your progeny.

Anonymous BillB November 09, 2013 2:21 PM  

Rush L was talking about these folks and how they are died in the wool Obamaites. They are supposedly looking at how to lower their income so they can qualify for subsidies.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 09, 2013 2:31 PM  

Your stockpile makes no mention of .22LR. Get 10s of thousands, then get a suppressor. CCI sells subsonic ammo as well.

If I could find any near me that wasn't rapaciously overpriced, I'd consider getting some for maintaining aim and, perhaps, barter for folks who won't accept 1964 and earlier silver coins. However I wouldn't trust my life to .22LR as I've had it fail on me at the range quite often, far more so than 9mm or .45ACP. Especially in semiauto configurations, .22LR is just too finicky/poorly QCd for me.

As for getting a suppressor, it's probably a better idea to get a threaded filter adapter and a bunch of filters, and wait. Otherwise you end up forking over a bunch of $$$ and letting the Feds know what you have.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch November 09, 2013 2:32 PM  

@ dh

"The ACA is turning out to be better than I had hoped in making people realize the actual cost of their medical care. That is the key to bringing down costs. "

The ACA, in the end, will not educate people on medical cost. Most people will merely "feel" the bump in the road without understanding it.

No. This joke of legislation shall not educate Americans. Not at all. The proportions of dumb hippy dippy liberals to thinking people will either remain the same OR INCREASE.

If you are waiting for the day for everyone to "get it" and suddenly have an epiphany, it will never come. Ever.

The only thing the Affordable Care Act will lead to is a complete and utter single-payer system. One in which care will be regulated heavily, and will favor those who succumb to the State philosophy.

Such will happen in half a generation to a generation.

And the people will love it and ask for more. Because they are stupid. Because Most People Are Idiots.

This land deserves to have everything good stripped from it.

(Note to sane people: Flee Babylon that you avoid partaking of her iniquities.)

Anonymous Shibes Meadow November 09, 2013 2:32 PM  

geoff November 09, 2013 2:19 PM: Your doctoral thesis length post above fails on its initial premise: Obama isn't looking to "fix" health care. He's looking to control every aspect of your life.

I happen to agree with you. That being said: Are you sure you are responding to my post? My initial premise was not "Obama is looking to 'fix' health care". My premise is that it is possible to ensure that every legal citizens has access to health care by eliminating all forms of government health "'insurance" and relying solely on private charity and the free market, primarily through the medium of cash payment." My "thesis" explains my conception of how such a system would work.

Eh, it's not even Obama. He's doing what he's told. Socialism is a giant disaster UNLESS you're rich and/or politically connected at the beginning of the implementation. Then it's a decades-long E-ticket ride for you and your progeny.

Again, I agree.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 2:33 PM  

> Except "wet" is a qualitative perception.

And ... we're done here. I think you just made my point for everyone else reading this thread.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 2:36 PM  

> Note to sane people: Flee Babylon that you avoid partaking of her iniquities.

I'm having trouble locating anywhere Babylon hasn't spread her tentacles. :(

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 2:42 PM  

@ James Dixon

"wet" isn't a measurement, whereas dollars expended is a measurement.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 2:45 PM  

dh...."The ACA is turning out to be better than I had hoped in making people realize the actual cost of their medical care."

No, dh. It is making everyone aware of the actual extraordinary costs of the medical care of SOME people. Most people seldom require medical care, for much of their lives. But now they are required to help pay for the most expensive cases with their premiums, as well as their taxes. Cases like multi-million dollar illegal alien long-term dialysis and kidney transplants. (Not just the medically needy, but also the sex change operations and boob jobs.)

dh......"That is the key to bringing down costs."

No, dh. It has not brought down the costs for anyone. Practically everyone is paying more for less coverage. Again, SOME of the extraordinary cases, particularly the uninsurable, will save money on their out of pocket costs AND now that everyone will either have "insurance" or "Medicaid" or "Medicare", the hospitals and doctors will HOPEFULLY stop the price discrimination, cost shifting, skimming, and patient dumping that we have seen in the past.....but I would not bet on it.

dh....."This lady had previously thought she was buying effective insurance, but it was a lie. Between tight regulation of what insurance is and preventing insurance companies from weeding out the risk pool, the right things are happening."

No, dh. The wrong things are happening. Many are being robbed (and lied to) for the benefit of the few. You liberals cannot even keep Jeremy Bentham straight in your mind. Utilitarianism would rob the few to benefit the many, not the other way around. (To quote Bentham..."it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".)

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 2:50 PM  

> Note to sane people: Flee Babylon that you avoid partaking of her iniquities.

James Dixon......"I'm having trouble locating anywhere Babylon hasn't spread her tentacles. :("

Babylon is not hard to find, about 50 south of Baghdad in modern, sunny Iraq. Ha Ha

Anonymous Difster November 09, 2013 3:01 PM  

I think after I get my current business really up and running and sold off, I will use that money to go create a couple of medical resorts in Mexico.

American trained doctors, nurses, etc. would provide quality medical services such as transplants, hip replacements, etc.

These hospitals will have full disclosure on virus outbreaks in operating rooms as well as published prices on medical procedures.

I would have a small airport just off hospital grounds so that patients didn't have to worry about security issues in transit from the major airports to my facility.

If I put one in Cancun and one in Cabo, people can even show up there off of the cruises. They can come in on one cruise and go back on another.

This will all be MUCH cheaper than even current costs for these procedures.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 3:09 PM  

Laramie---

The ACA, in the end, will not educate people on medical cost. Most people will merely "feel" the bump in the road without understanding it.

I probably agree with that. If the ACA doesnt' get people to save enough for their own medical care and buy thier own way, at least a large number of people, then the alternative is either single payer or cash-only/private pay only. Insurance as a thing that you buy if you want it, for medical care, is over either way.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 3:20 PM  

DR--

No, dh. It is making everyone aware of the actual extraordinary costs of the medical care of SOME people. Most people seldom require medical care, for much of their lives. But now they are required to help pay for the most expensive cases with their premiums, as well as their taxes. Cases like multi-million dollar illegal alien long-term dialysis and kidney transplants. (Not just the medically needy, but also the sex change operations and boob jobs.)

Ok, I think that's covered under what I said. Regardless, you are right. Many people spend their whole lives on private insurance, paying in premiums, undergoing only routine care. And then they age into government insurance (medicare, most often), and their costs go through the roof (as they often do as you get old). This is essentially fascism - the private companies push expensive cases onto the tax payers, while keeping the inexpensive (namely, the young and gainfully employed) for themselves. This is 100% fine for insurance companies, but a problem for tax payers.

No, dh. It has not brought down the costs for anyone. Practically everyone is paying more for less coverage. Again, SOME of the extraordinary cases, particularly the uninsurable, will save money on their out of pocket costs AND now that everyone will either have "insurance" or "Medicaid" or "Medicare", the hospitals and doctors will HOPEFULLY stop the price discrimination, cost shifting, skimming, and patient dumping that we have seen in the past.....but I would not bet on it

Wrong. The costs of the care are exactly the same. The allocation of who pays has changed. Paying "more for less coverage" is not true. They *are* paying more, and paying for a more representative share of what the actual risk + cost of the average coverage & care is. The lady in the article - she appears to be in her late 50's or early 60's. Her insurance before was predicated on the fact that if she got sick, her insurance company would have to pay up to 1 year of expenses. Then, after that year, they would either drop her entirely, or price her out of the market. Then, without insurance and sick, she would bleed through her assets, if any, and then fall into Medicaid, or if she was old enough, Medicare. And the tax payers would pay for her. And that option is no longer available, and so insurers have to raise premiums to cover their increased risk.

In the very big picture, there are tons and tons of boomers who have spent lavishly on crap they can't afford, for decades, and not saved enough for their own potential medical needs. The ACA is their lifeline.

No, dh. The wrong things are happening. Many are being robbed (and lied to) for the benefit of the few. You liberals cannot even keep Jeremy Bentham straight in your mind. Utilitarianism would rob the few to benefit the many, not the other way around. (To quote Bentham..."it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".)

I disagree. The lady and many millions like her were living a lie, a lie that you can insure two people in their late 50's or early 60's, against all manner of health care events, for less than $10k a year. Saying her premiums are going up to $12k a year or more, with another $10k in cost sharing is the single best way to make her realize that paying for gender reassignment, Medicaid for the wilfully lazy slackers, every single mother out there, etc is not in her best interests. For the first time these costs are directly applied across the people who previously believed that their insurance premiums actually covered the risk.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 3:22 PM  

Difister--

Next time you fly, open up the in-flight magazine, go to the back. It is filled with advertisements for exactly what you describe. Even without the American doctors they do a very nice business, and the airlines love it.

A huge slice of the costs Americans pay for medical care is wasted. Every time you visit a hospital that looks like a resort, that is premium dollars and tax money building that excess.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter November 09, 2013 3:24 PM  

I suspect that Obama is quietly congratulating himself on having forced the US to a single-payer system in four years.

The insurance companies might be pissed, though.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 3:33 PM  

> "wet" isn't a measurement, whereas dollars expended is a measurement.

And dollars expended can be wasted, inflated, and lied about. Wet isn't as susceptible to such manipulations. That's why I used it as my example.

> The ACA is their lifeline.

Well, if it were going to work, it might be. Since it isn't going to...

The next step will be full government control. And then those boomers are going to get the bad news that their end of life illnesses aren't going to be paid for after all, but that routine hospice care or the Kervorkian solution will be. And with full governmental control, even those who have saved enough to otherwise cover their care won't be able to get it. Unless you're weatlhly enough to setup you private clinic overseas or have political connections, of course.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 3:34 PM  

Concerned--

That's not far from the truth. The real pain for GOP is still coming, though, as Governors get prepared to abandon their ideology and expand Medicaid. The design of the ACA plus the SCOTUS ruling on it, will lead to the GOP having it's back broken.

It's already starting: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/health/cuts-in-hospital-subsidies-threaten-safety-net-care.html?hp&_r=0

Anonymous Difster November 09, 2013 3:36 PM  

dh,

I know these places exist already, but they're mostly in India and other far fetched places.

I'm thinking on the scale of having two MASSIVE facilities in Mexico.

And of course there would be a lot of charity work also.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby November 09, 2013 3:38 PM  

However I wouldn't trust my life to .22LR as I've had it fail on me at the range quite often...

I used to have a Marlin bolt with 7 round mag, heavy barrel (don't remember the model) topped of with a Leupold that spit out .22 mag (CCI) at 200 yards on softballs consistently. Never had a failure. You could hit golf-balls with it at 100 yards... consistently. Wish I had never got rid of it.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 3:39 PM  

I'm thinking on the scale of having two MASSIVE facilities in Mexico.

Just take a trip. There are AT least 100 within 5 miles of the US border in Mexico that I have seen. They are very, very, very common. Also, Dominican Republic is popular for medical tourism.

It's a great idea, but sadly you are about 15 years behind schedule to get a jump on it.

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 3:42 PM  

JD--

You are basically right. The ACA is the end of the line for private insurance and health care delivery. Either this works, or it's full socialization, with Canadian or UK style rationing.

That is why, except for the fact that the GOP are stupid, they should be working to make the ACA function. The alternative to the ACA isn't a fully open, fully free market solution. The entire aged class would instantly be both priced out of the market, and be unable to buy any private insurance, at any cost. The millions of ants who never saved and who have outlived their productive days without substantial assets would be at the mercy of charity.

Anonymous Red Comet November 09, 2013 3:46 PM  

The entire aged class would instantly be both priced out of the market, and be unable to buy any private insurance, at any cost. The millions of ants who never saved and who have outlived their productive days without substantial assets would be at the mercy of charity.

Considering what their generation did to the United States and how they have left it for people my age and younger, one might argue they'll be getting what they deserve.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 3:47 PM  

The millions of ants who never saved and who have outlived their productive days without substantial assets would be at the mercy of charity.

So what?

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 4:02 PM  

@ James Dixon

And dollars expended can be wasted, inflated, and lied about.

The post cites cross country comparisons between private R&D investment as measured in percentage of GDP. That makes inflation irrelevant and if you think that German firms systemically malinvest more than American firms then the onus is on you to explain why.

Do you bother to think before you post?

Anonymous dh November 09, 2013 4:03 PM  

Red Comet/Josh--

I don't reject the "so what" concept entirely. Having visited societies where the old/sick are left to quite literally die in the street or in large rooms full of very sick people, I am not thrilled about it. But it may be where we can afford to be long term.

The size of healthcare spending in this country is way out of whack to what we get for it. It's disproportionate. A first step in reining in it is to make people who are responsible for those costs - the old, the sick, the unproductive, more aware and more invested in those costs.

The entirely free market model - which is a workable system - would require Americans to save and build wealth for the purpose of later liquidating it to pay for their healthcare. I don't see that happening, and of course, if we started it tomorrow, it would a generation before those who came into old age under the current system died out. Perhaps watching a generation of childless, barren, poor seniors die of rather ungracefully would spark the younger Americans into larger families, moving saving, and greater thrift. But probably not.

The most likely alternative is that we end up with Canadian style Medicare. Constantly fighting shortages, trying to allocate resources from other sources, etc is not the end of the world. We already have shortages. We already have resource allocation problems. We already have doctor shortages, and quality problems, and all manner of problems. And we still have high costs.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 4:03 PM  

Yes, indeed. The most recent episode and its associated fallout is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It's the part that's most readily visible.

A.W.

Anonymous Difster November 09, 2013 4:04 PM  

dh, if they're on the border, they're not resort style facilities, at least not on the outside. Other than Ensenada, there are no resort towns near the border.

What I'm talking about is going big.

Why are you trying to crush my ideas?

Seriously though, I know what's out there. I just want to do it better.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 4:13 PM  

Most effective solution is to subsidize abortions in "vibrant" neighborhoods and if a person objects to this, accuse that person of waging a "war on women". That'll shut him up. Offer free lotto tickets for vasectomies (we know who's more likely to take up this offer). If a person objects, accuse that person of being a racist who opposes wealth and opportunity for vibrants.

And last but not least, sic the divorce industry and (anti)family courts on the newcomers (this is already underway, the Left doesn't realize that they are already undermining their own demographic plans). And if anybody objects, accuse them of not considering the best interests of the children of the newcomers... also, accuse the objector of misogyny.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 4:19 PM  

It's "very important" that men get maternity coverage... I mean, what if a man gets pregnant and gives birth?

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 4:21 PM  

I can't wait for kindergarteners to get "Canadian puberty"!

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 4:31 PM  

Free lotto tickets for every subsidized abortion will do the trick... Plus, send the (anti)family courts after the vibrants in order to further disrupt their reproductive life cycle (in the best interests of the unaborted children of course). If anybody objects, accuse the objectors of being child abusing misogynists.

Blogger Unknown November 09, 2013 4:36 PM  

Time for legalized prostitution. And encourage jacking off to free porn.

Anonymous Ferd November 09, 2013 5:01 PM  

"I've been preparing for the implementation of Obamacare by educating myself on the medicinal properties of herbs, how to prepare and administer them, and have planted a medicinal herb garden on my property. "

Good going! And i just received my "Surgery for Dummies" last week. I have been practicing on the dummy i have but i suppose i am not so good. But, i willl be prepared when that appendix starts to rupture!

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 5:09 PM  

> That is why, except for the fact that the GOP are stupid, they should be working to make the ACA function.

Again, dh, the d's control the senate, and they're not willing to compromise with r's in any way, shape, or form. It's not a question of working on it. They're completely shut out of the process. That's why they would have been better off simply shutting the government down completely until the next election and letting the people decide what they wanted. They're going to get blamed by the d's regardless. Might as well get blamed for actually doing something.

> Do you bother to think before you post?

Yes. Do you bother to listen? More and more Asher like with every post.

Anonymous Jonathan November 09, 2013 5:16 PM  

James, it's just embarrassing when one has to put up with people like yourself shooting off at the mouth. Medical R&D investment as percentage of GDP is roughly the same for the US, UK and Germany. It's possible that the R&D cost are recouped by companies in all three countries from US consumers, but that has not been established by evidence.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 5:16 PM  

> The most likely alternative is that we end up with Canadian style Medicare. Constantly fighting shortages, trying to allocate resources from other sources, etc

Pretty much, yes. Except that our government has repeatedly demonstrated that it can't run such systems without massive fraud, abuse, and political favoritism. The US government, for whatever reason, simply isn't any good at running big programs of that type. So we'll get something that costs twice what the Canadian system costs and gives about half the service. And destroys the existing Canadian safety net of coming to the US for treatments they can't get there in the process.

I'll leave it to your imagination what such a system will look like. I've already given my description.

Blogger James Dixon November 09, 2013 5:17 PM  

> ...it's just embarrassing when one has to put up with people like yourself shooting off at the mouth.

Then don't put up with me. I'm never asked you to read my posts.

Anonymous Josh November 09, 2013 5:24 PM  

It's possible that the R&D cost are recouped by companies in all three countries from US consumers, but that has not been established by evidence.

US consumers fund all R&D worldwide because drug re-importation is banned. That's why drug prices in El Paso are significantly higher than across the border in Juarez.

Anonymous nick digger November 09, 2013 5:25 PM  

Rseven: Offer free lotto tickets for vasectomies

Yeah, but what if one of them wins the lotto, and gets the vasectomy reversed? Offer double the amount of lotto tickets, but insist on castration. This will tide us over until we finally invent a sterilization drug, codenamed: The Twelfth Herb.

Blogger Hacked acctount 2018/19? hcaacked! November 09, 2013 5:27 PM  

It is beautiful isn't it...Medcaid and medicare will surely help them.

Forgive me, its sad, I take no joy in their suffering or anyone's suffering but then again I must admit to doing so here and there.

It wasn't a problem when the steel and free trade was hijacked displacing our men. Before the ACA, both parents HC or health care insurance and monies were all cancelled.

It wasn't a problem to fire me repeatedly, take my house and force 2005 to 2013 into years of illness, suffering and severe austerity measures in one household.

May God help them but their hope is dashed, trashed and HR gate keepers don't want them or anyone.

Evil says, "All hail diversity, perversity and abominations."

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 5:36 PM  

James Dixon...."Pretty much, yes. Except that our government has repeatedly demonstrated that it can't run such systems without massive fraud, abuse, and political favoritism."

Very good point, James. We have already seen how the political class responds when their pet rocks do not work well and result in shortages. They tell everyone "too bad" and "get over it". I am sure that will work great at the polls. But it is true, a single payor system (pick one, does not matter which one) cuts costs to fit government budgets with long delays in treatment, denial of services, and the normal refusal to adopt the best treatments and therapies. People die needlessly? Who gives a f*ck? They had it coming. They should have been rich instead......like us. Then they could run for the US Senate and not have to deal with the same crap as the little people.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2013 5:41 PM  

Rseven: Offer free lotto tickets for vasectomies

nick digger....."Yeah, but what if one of them wins the lotto, and gets the vasectomy reversed? Offer double the amount of lotto tickets, but insist on castration. This will tide us over until we finally invent a sterilization drug, codenamed: The Twelfth Herb."

Ha Ha. You are talking about a rational world, it seems. Obamacare will cover men who decide they had rather be women and women who want to be men. Vaz.....heck no.....she wants the full monty, so she can begat children with other women.
Of course, later she can change her mind later (like the NYC mayor's wife) and go back to being a woman when she gets a better deal.

Anonymous map November 09, 2013 7:08 PM  

Dh, regardless of whatever arguments you want to make now defending Obamacare, the bottom line is, O-Care was not sold on that basis. It was sold on the basis of providing healthcare to all for less than what they were currently paying while maintaining the quality of service. That has not happened. The revelatory cost function of Obamacare is not a bug that you can turn to a feature.

There is a much deeper problem. Why is there such a concern about healthcare costs? There is no concern about the costs of any other welfare program or other government program. But because healthcare affects white people primarily suddenly Democrats are sooooo concerned about solving this particular accounting problem.

There was nothing wrong with the previous healthcare model, where the majority of costs were accrued at the end-of -life. The costs end when the person dies. Only if you were concerned about the number of white people accruing these costs would this be a big deal.

Anonymous Anonymous November 09, 2013 7:14 PM  

This is why there's no call to nationalize car insurance …

I just received a letter from my auto insurance company, asking me to verify my medical coverage - depending on the policy I may or may not be eligible for Excess Medical coverage - if it is deemed my policy is not, then I will no longer be qualified for PIP (Personal Injury Protection), which all auto insurance holders were entitle to from their auto insurance carrier. Thanks again ACA.

Anonymous TJ November 09, 2013 7:27 PM  

My CA Blue Cross will be canceled in January.

I pay $420/month and had something like $5K deductible but I had unlimited coverage above that.
This plan was to make sure I was covered for the serious shit.
This is exactly how insurance should be used (and not for spreading the cost of your
fucking birth control across every policy holder).

I think the insurance companies thought they were going to make out on this. I won't be getting a new plan. The ACA and the insurance companies can kiss my ass.

I will wait to sign up when I actually need it. I hope millions of those kicked of their independent plans do the same...then the insurance companies will be missing there dollars and the millions of generation Y's they though were going to sign up for ACA.

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2013 7:38 PM  

The ACA is turning out to be better than I had hoped in making people realize the actual cost of their medical care

It is certainly making the relatively young and healthy recognize the cost of subsidizing the expenses of the relatively old and unhealthy.

The lamentations of middle class Obama voters who thought it would be free for them are entertaining. They were always the target. Pedro and Shaniqua will continue to get handouts.

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 7:43 PM  

One factor that dh fails to take into account, in true lefty fashion, is that people will change their behavior given the change in incentives and consequences. Americans have poor enough personal health practices as it is... how exactly is penalizing the healthy to pay for the unhealthy going to give anyone an incentive to live healthier? In fact, both the healthy and the unhealthy will have less reason to avoid risky behavior.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2013 7:52 PM  

The pResident and the PriapusCranium politicians did not take into account the unintended consequences.

Anonymous TJ November 09, 2013 8:00 PM  

Rycamor: "One factor that dh fails to take into account, in true lefty fashion, is that people will change their behavior given the change in incentives and consequences. "

I have already changed mine. I won't be paying for insurance until I need it. If 4 million of the > 11 million people who lost their independent plans do the same then the insurance companies are out of ~$24B annually (assuming $500/month lost per person).

Anonymous Catan November 09, 2013 8:05 PM  

They *are* paying more, and paying for a more representative share of what the actual risk + cost of the average coverage & care is.

Oh, all those young healthy people, healthy small business owners with the much higher deductible and premiums are paying a more representative share, now?

Just like a liberal to slice the larger picture up and deal with tiny slices at a time, to make your argument look persuasive.

No, they're also paying for all those free hospital visits for those who show up with nothing. All the immigrants doing the same. And yes, all the bureaucracy and corruption.

A 'more representative share'. Sounds like something Obama would say. What a lie.

Anonymous Catan November 09, 2013 8:08 PM  

So dh, how is Obamacare going to get the illegals, the poor without jobs or 'on the table' income to pay a 'more representative share'?

Or do you agree with the middle class being bled to death until all people are healthy?

dh, how do you not see the simple truth here? Look at how much money we throw down these black holes already! Has it eliminated ONE IOTA or poverty or the poverty culture?

The more you agree to bleed the middle class for this bottomless pit, the more you destroy what's left of civil society?

Are you just totally blind to this?

Anonymous TJ November 09, 2013 8:08 PM  

Yes, indeed. The most recent episode and its associated fallout is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It's the part that's most readily visible.

A.W.
----------------------------
Which reminds me.
I may very well have been the first man to utter the words "watch out, that girl is an iceberg" back in 1991 when my friend was going to approach a girl sitting down at a table near the bar (she was shaped like a pear). Everything above the water line was good ... what lurked below was no bueno.

Blogger rycamor November 09, 2013 8:11 PM  

Also of note: several have mentioned that 1965 was the advent of US government involvement in healthcare. It should be noted that from 1965 to the present, cancer rates have risen drastically. Some statistics suggest at least a tripling, and it has only gotten worse recently.

Now the statistics on infections disease do represent a triumph for the 20th century, but... there might be some blowback. What if The Age of Antibiotics is Coming to an End?

Anonymous bluto November 09, 2013 8:11 PM  

.This is all I have to say.

1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts