AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (271 comments)

  1. Seattle Sam

    Isn’t this what always happens in some form when you make major changes without building a consensus?

  2. Jon Murphy

    This is exactly, exactly what happened in Massachusetts!

  3. Mr. Econotarian

    It is becoming clear that the exchanges are going to be a second-tier medical service like the NHS. The problem is that even if the exchange plans only access cheaper doctors and hospitals, they may not sign up enough well people to fund them fully, so expect the “subsidies” from government to rise.

  4. Jon Murphy

    I mean, seriously, are people not paying attention?! I am having deja vu because all these problems already happened in Massachusetts seven years ago!

    This is a bloody carbon copy!

    1. Jon

      So, that notion of state and local governments being “laboratories of democracy” is just so much BS. When something is tried in one state and proves to be a failure, nothing is learned and it will be implemented on a national level anyway.

      Very comforting.

      1. Jon Murphy

        It’s never about science, Ron. It’s about getting votes. And, more often than not, that means ignoring science and going with the ignorance of the voter. How else could things like minimum wage or GM crop bans occur? Sure as Hell ain’t based on science.

      2. Of course actually dealing with the truth instead of promoting lies to satisfy your own bias is a help:

        2013 MMS Health Care Public Opinion Survey

        August 5, 2013

        2013 Health Care Public Opinion Survey

        A survey of 417 Massachusetts residents sponsored by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that most Massachusetts adults believe that affordability is the single most important health care issue facing the state.

        Residents are more likely to cite affordability and cost-related issues than mention issues related to health care access by a three-to-one margin.

        84% of residents expressed satisfaction with the care they received over the last year, including 56% who indicated they are “very satisfied” and 28% who are “somewhat satisfied.” While the 84% is a slight dip from 2012, when 87% said they were satisfied, satisfaction with care has remained highly stable since the Medical Society first asked this question in 2004, when 88% of adults indicated they were satisfied. The biggest reasons for this high level of satisfaction are “quality of care,” cited by 51%, and “good access,” named by 27%.

        73% of residents reported that gaining access to health care they need is “not difficult” (down 5% from 2012). Despite the declines from last year, ease of access is markedly higher than in 2008, when just 57% said access was not difficult. However, the percentage of residents reporting a wait of a month or more to see their primary care physicians is at its highest level in the history of this study, increasing from 21% in 2012 to 28% in 2013.
        For serious medical problems, 86% said the amount of time they needed to wait was not a problem, with the majority of residents (62%) reporting that they waited less than two weeks to get an appointment for a serious problem.

        http://www.golocalworcester.com/health/new-massachusetts-top-concern-with-health-care-remains-cost/

        THe problem with the critics – is that they’ll pick out one thing – ” However, the percentage of residents reporting a wait of a month or more to see their primary care physicians is at its highest level in the history of this study, increasing from 21% in 2012 to 28% in 2013.”

        and ignore the other things:

        ” 84% of residents expressed satisfaction with the care they received over the last year,”

        and ” 73% of residents reported that gaining access to health care they need is “not difficult” (down 5% from 2012). Despite the declines from last year, ease of access is markedly higher than in 2008, when just 57% said access was not difficult.”

        so while it’s not perfect by far, it’s not a failure either and it sounds better than some European universal health care systems.

        the problems with the critics here – is that they are opposed to any/all govt involvement in health care – period – despite the fact that the only countries in the world with decent life expectancies – are those countries with universal health care.

        the critics here advocate a 3rd world type healthcare system where there is no govt and health care is purely a private matter.

        folks like this have been around a long time and they are consistently a tiny minority of Americans … but apparently too unprincipled to get themselves to a country that matches their views on how health care should work.

        1. Harold Saxon

          Opinions are not facts, idiot.

          ER wait times in Massachusetts are a full hour higher than the national average (compared to a full hour below the national average prior to 2006).

          The number of doctors-to-patient has fallen precipitously.

          Want a PCP? Be prepared to wait about 1 year (9 months longer than the national average). And be glad if you can find one: half are not accepting new patients and, of those that do, about 2/3rds do not accept Mass Health plans.

          Need to see a specialist? Good luck. Average wait time is about 5 months.

          Want access to some of the best hospitals in the world, like Mass General, Children’s Hospital, or Tufts? Not if you have a Mass Health plan.

          Once gain, you adorable little fool, you demonstrate you have no clue what you’re talking about.

          I love how you try to laud opinion as fact. That’s right up there with saying logic is a personal thing.

          1. Jon Murphy

            Couple of good points, Harry. I also kind of find it funny that, in an article that lists many, many problems with MA health care (cost and affordability being the big one), he picks the one paragraph saying people are “satisfied,” ignores all the rest, and then accuses me of cherry-picking.

            This is why I’ve stopped taking him seriously and I suggest you do, too. When I was younger and foolish, I actually used to believe his lies that he was here to learn. I defended him many-a-time against Methinks and others, both here and at Cafe Hayek (as recently as this year!). Now I see past all that and that he is just here to argue for the sake of arguing. Just ignore him.

          2. Jon Murphy

            Oh, one other thing: The poll is primarily Worcester-area residents. You live in Worcester, health care really isn’t a problem. You got the MetroWest Medical Center, UMASS Medical Center, and St. Vincint’s all in easy access. Health care was never a problem in Worcester. It’s the rest of the state.

          3. “Opinions are not facts, idiot.”

            then why do you cite them?

            ER wait times in Massachusetts are a full hour higher than the national average (compared to a full hour below the national average prior to 2006).

            The number of doctors-to-patient has fallen precipitously.

            Want a PCP? Be prepared to wait about 1 year (9 months longer than the national average). And be glad if you can find one: half are not accepting new patients and, of those that do, about 2/3rds do not accept Mass Health plans.

            Need to see a specialist? Good luck. Average wait time is about 5 months.

            Want access to some of the best hospitals in the world, like Mass General, Children’s Hospital, or Tufts? Not if you have a Mass Health plan.

            Once gain, you adorable little fool, you demonstrate you have no clue what you’re talking about.

            how these folks: “A survey of 417 Massachusetts residents sponsored by the Massachusetts Medical Society ”

            I love how you try to laud opinion as fact. That’s right up there with saying logic is a personal thing.”

            do you not consider a survey by Mass Medical Society of actual residents as “fact”?

            got an authoritative cite fool?

            nothing by the way – keeps anyone from buying better if they can afford it,

            and when you actually ask those in that system – all things considered – good and bad and 84% were satisfied what does all that other trash you are throwing mean?

            you guys simply don’t want the truth.

            you are ideologically opposed to it to start with and you cherry pick the parts you want cite as “proof” while ignoring the other things that undermine your ideology.

            this is why you are a tiny minority.. and will never have
            any impact on real issues.. everyone knows that you’re
            “anti” zealots..

            Harold, your brain is worthless if you can’t use it …don’t want to use it objectively.

            I do not think ObamaCare nor Commonwealth Care are the greatest thing since sliced bread by any stretch of the imagination.

            They are what they are – but they are better than what we had before… and as we go forward – they will get better.

            folks like you have nothing. you are just opposed and really don’t care what happens to people who cannot get access at all. you ignore that lack of access all together.

            this is why you lose.

          4. Harold Saxon

            So, you have absolutely no clue what the difference is between fact and opinion?

            Every day it becomes more obvious why you’re irreparability idiotic.

          5. Is that all you’ve got Harold?

            go back to your internet cave boy.

          6. Harold Saxon

            How else do you defend the sentence:

            “do you not consider a survey by Mass Medical Society of actual residents as “fact”?”

            Either you don’t know what the difference between and opinion and a fact is, or you don’t know what a survey is. Either way, it’s not good.

          7. ” “do you not consider a survey by Mass Medical Society of actual residents as “fact”?”

            Either you don’t know what the difference between and opinion and a fact is, or you don’t know what a survey is. Either way, it’s not good.”

            It’s FACTUAL about how the majority feel overall about their health care system even with some of the issues….

            When someone wants to talk about how “bad” their system is – best to check with the people themselves.

            If you are an ideologue – you can find fault with ANY system – in the world – and do..

            but that’s not the measure.

            Is Commonwealth Care a total failure and is going to be done away with?

            nope.

            Are Australia, Canada, Germany, Singapore, health care systems “failures” and will be disbanded to find a different way ?

            nope.

            Name the best health care systems in the world that are not OECD and have no problems.

            ZIPPO.

          8. Harold Saxon

            So, you really don’t know what the difference between opinion and fact is?

          9. Harold – give it up and go back to your cave guy.

          10. Harold Saxon: Either you don’t know what the difference between and opinion and a fact is, or you don’t know what a survey is.

            A survey is an observation, in this case, a sampling of opinion.

          11. Harold Saxon: So, you really don’t know what the difference between opinion and fact is?

            It’s a fact (more properly a measurement) concerning opinion.

          12. Example: Most people like cake better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. That’s a fact.

          13. re: ” Example: Most people like cake better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. That’s a fact.”

            exactly.

            It’s a FACT that the people in Massachusetts think far better about their health care system than folks like Harold and Jon…et al.

            so when Jon/Harold say how bad Massachusetts health care is and feebly attempt to “prove” it with flimsy cherry-picked “evidence” that ignores the full picture, I put more stock in the views of those who actually are involved in ALL of it and have developed a view about it in general.

            Using Jon/Harold’s “technique” you can make a horrible list of all that is “wrong” with Medicare including those “death panels” … but check with the folks who have Medicare and see if they think it is so horrible.

            same thing in Massachusetts but then Jon/Harold are not trying to identify what is wrong and needs fixing – they’re using those things as “evidence” that it is a “failure”.

            but this is what ideologues do anyhow… so no surprises.

          14. Harold Saxon

            See? At least Zach gets it. He’s not as dumb as he pretends to be.

            Unfortunately, Zach old chum, Larry disagrees with you. It’s an observation of a fact, not an opinion.

          15. Jon

            And, one (or more) additional other thing(s):

            – I notice that MMS is an advocacy group, working to improve access to healthcare through legislation – the very thing Romneycare was intended, but has failed to do in MA.

            – The seemingly central question of satisfaction is about satisfaction with *care received*, not overall satisfaction, and is a lower than it was last year, and lower than it was prior to healthcare reform in MA. I’m not sure what to make of the fact that only 56% were “very satisfied” with the care they received. What does it mean to be “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment you receive?

            In other important areas of life I’m 100% satisfied with the availability, access to, and quality of housing at my disposal. Ditto food. Ditto clothing. Ditto most things that don’t include major central planning.

            – Emergency room usage continues to increase year after year, for non-life-threatening conditions, apparently indicating that access to care is becoming more difficult, or wait times unacceptable.

            – Only 51% of Family Practice physicians are accepting new patients. I presume that means primary care physicians. Not a good sign.

            Overall, this survey indicates a decline in healthcare provision in MA, and if I were arguing *for* Obamacare, as some uninformed people do, I certainly wouldn’t use this survey for support.

          16. Z:

            Example: Most people like cake better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. That’s a fact.

            Hmm. Just for accuracy you might re-word that to say:

            “It’s a FACT that when asked, it is the opinion of most people that they (would) prefer cake to a poke in the rye with a sharp stick.”

            Most people who haven’t experienced a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, or who haven’t had cake, are only guessing.

            In most cases your statement would be correct. But in this case, where there are comments by someone who *doesn’t* actually know the difference between fact and opinion, or even what a survey is, it’s important to be very precise.

          17. ” it’s important to be very precise.”

            ahahahahahah

            Harold?

            most of the rest of you yahoos?

            “precise” is a euphemism for making sure you lies are “self consistent”.

            it’s sort of a occupational hazard with being an ideologue.

          18. Harold Saxon: “So, you really don’t know what the difference between opinion and fact is?

            Z: “It’s a fact (more properly a measurement) concerning opinion.

            I’m sure the idiot troll appreciates your providing the correct answer, but no one suggested that YOU didn’t know the difference.

          19. Ron H: Most people who haven’t experienced a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, or who haven’t had cake, are only guessing.

            Most people have more than enough experience to have a preference.

          20. Z: “Most people have more than enough experience to have a preference.

            You don’t know that. Can you cite an authoritative source?

            You are projecting your own preferences and the preferences of people you know onto “most people”.

          21. Z: “Most people have more than enough experience to have a preference.

            Actually your assertion is almost certainly correct, but to call it a fact is going too far. Gravity, after all, is only a theory.

            I wouldn’t even attempt to falsify your theory about cake, but it IS important to be precise when the idiot troll is lurking about.

  5. How would a doctor even know if the insurance was purchased through the exchange since many are the same private insurance companies that also are employer-provided insurance companies like Anthem?

    This is the same thing they said about Medicare and MedicAid – and TRICARE (the military single payer plan).

    But if someone buys an Anthem policy through the exchange how does the doctor even know?

    Do they know if Anthem is the insurer whether the patient got it through their employer or the exchange?

    1. I think the plans in Obamacare have a lower pay schedule. Medicare and medicaid re parasitic. Doctors break even at best and only serve patients in those programs as good will since they could make it up with people on normal insurance. If Obamacare lowers the payout for “regular” insurance as well the physicians will have to drop some patients because physicians are not charities.

      1. it will be lower than Medicare and MedicAid?

        how do we know?

        1. It doesn’t have to be lower than medicaid or medicare. If the doctors can’t make up the m&m losses with real insurance something will give. So even a small drop in “real” insurance payments can have a major fallout. I suspect all the new medicare enrollees will suffer most.

      2. It turns out there are two kinds of subsidy for the ACA between 250 and 400% you get just a premium subsidy, but between 250 and 133% you get lower deductibles and copays. So for the second class you may be able to tell. But for the first class or for folks who make above the subsidy limit, unless they mean they will only take group clients they can’t tell. (Since ALL new individual policies look the same)

        1. The plans all have special names unlike the ones that the companies sell to normal folks. I am pretty sure when they type your plan code in the computer for the first time, it would come up Obamacare – I am also pretty sure that when the insurance company only pays out 80% of what they were expecting, they would also figure it out.

          Noone really knows yet. Looks like I will get lower deductibles and copays next year. Wish I were rich like Larry so I wouldn’t have to worry about price increases.

          BTW found a handy chart
          http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

          1. I believe the 250% subsidy makes a difference. Otherwise the plans listed on the Blue Cross Texas web site are the same names.
            Actually the refusal is more because the plans are not paying what the physicians want. There was a story where Memorial Sloan Kettering is not in any of the ACA networks. Partly this is a reflection of how costs for a proceedure can vary by hospital by a factor of 3.
            We do know from experience that an HMO style plan is a way to reduce health care costs.
            Looking at BCBS Tx plans they have ones with restricted networks, and PPOs with large networks, the PPOs cost more, so you get what you pay for. (In many cases however the more expensive institution does not get better quality ratings than the less expensive institution, and because employeers also want to control costs some of these institutions may fall out of employeer networks, using concepts like reference pricing which means that if you want to go to the expensive institution you pay the excess price.

            In summary not taking means not in network, and that is because the physicians think they can get enough business otherwise. Of course the small business physician practice (1-3 physicians) is going away because it is no longer economic in favor of the group practice.

          2. Lyle

            I believe the 250% subsidy makes a difference.

            Can that be correct? If I go to the doctor he will pay ME 1 1/2 times his normal fee?

          3. If your income is below 250% of poverty but above 133% you get reduced copay’s and deductibles. (compared to those above 250% of poverty). So there is the premium subsidy below 400% and the copay/deductible subsidy below 250%

          4. Lyle… I did not know that.. do you have a link that details it?

            thanks

        2. “Actually the refusal is more because the plans are not paying what the physicians want”

          Didn’t I just say that? Are you arguing just for the point of arguing, and then bringing up that HMO’s and PPO’s exist as some kind of revelation?

        3. BTW, I am on the California website, looking at the actual plans.

          Not sure where you are getting your info.

    2. spam boy when are you going to get out of your normal position?

  6. Hi from Australia, where we have a publicly funded health care system as part of one of the highest standards of living in the world. And we pay about the same in tax as you. If we can do it, what’s your problem?

    http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50eef524ecad04766900000c-960/tax%20rates%20ranking%20100k.jpg

    1. We don’t want it. The majority of Americans didn’t favor the ACA and even more don’t now. It was crammed down our throat by know-it-all lefties.

      Also, we’re American. If we wanted to be more like Australia, we’d talk funny and contribute less to the world.

      1. Yeah, that’s right, resort to insults and playing the man instead of the ball. Works for the schoolyard bully, but it’s not an argument.

        1. that’s right, resort to insults and playing the man instead of the ball“…

          There was nothing insulting about ken‘s comment unless the facts hurt…

          part of one of the highest standards of living in the world“…

          Well yeah, if this were 1955 you might have a point…

          Australia a great place to visit but to actually have to live like them – thanks but no thanks…

          1. morganovich

            as with any product, pick 2: good, fast, cheap.

            austrialia has long waits for care and specialists can be VERY difficult to see.

            i used to live there and have direct personal experience.

            it took me 4 months to see an endocrinologist.

            in the meantime, a cavalcade of incompetent docs kept tying to give me antibiotics for a thyroid issue (itself a nonsensical just look busy response) and this was in sydney, which is about the best market for healthcare in australia. the docs were harried, overworked, unconcerned, and barely medically literate. they just wanted to gve you a pill and get you out the door.

            sure, it was all free for me, but man did i get what i paid for. i finally got to an endocrinologist who was useless and did not even understand what tests needed to be run and them seemed to be unable to order them.

            then it took 5 weeks to get back simple blood tests.

            upon returning to the US, i had this issue cleared up in 2 weeks.

            the aussie system may be fine if you break your arm, are having a baby, or some such, but if you need specialist care, it’s not even remotely comparable to the us.

            if that is your “great system” them you can keep it. it did not seem great to me.

            that’s the trade off. if you want rapid availability and high quality, that costs.

            be grateful that the us us here so you can come get care if you really need it. (as the canadians seem to do)

        2. morganovich

          also:

          the aussie argument about standards of living rings pretty hollow.

          sure, the standard of living there is high, but then one must as “why”?

          if the key to your high standard of living is a small population on top of a huge pile of natural resources very close to a huge market for them, then realize that you are benefiting from a pleasant quirk of geography, not some inherent merit.

          it’s like north dakota saying to mississipi, hey, you guys should just find a ton of oil and get rich too.

          it always makes me laugh when guys confuse being lucky with being smart.

          add enough resource wealth, and damn near any system can stay propped up. look at the middle east or norway.

          but when we start making a list of big, successful, world class companies and innovators, where are the aussie ones?

          outside of resources, they barely register.

          so please, stop trying to position your geographical and demographic good fortune as some sort of emulatable merit.

          to do so is highly disingenuous.

          1. You have never seen The Wiggles have you?

          2. marque2

            You [morganovich] have never seen The Wiggles have you?

            He probably hasn’t. Morganovich doesn’t have children living with him, and I don’t know of any adult who would watch them intentionally otherwise.

        3. Get a clue, dipshit. We don’t aspire to be Australians. That you think we do or should shows what a petty idiot you are. But just to make it clear I’ll say it again: Americans are weak minded Autralians, desperately looking to the government to take from their political enemies to give to themselves. We don’t want to be treated like children, thinking of politicians as our daddies taking care of us.

          We Americans are adults and resent to paternalism of politicians. We especially resent politicians who steal from us to buy votes from their constitutents. I know you Australians are thoroughly corrup to the bone and unable to muster up the courage and hard work necessary to make your own living, which is why Americans are your daddies, heavily subsidizing you. Why don’t you just go to your room and think about what you’ve done?

          1. re: ” Get a clue, dipshit. We don’t aspire to be Australians”

            nor:

            Norway
            New Zealand
            Japan
            Germany
            Belgium
            United Kingdom
            Kuwait
            Sweden
            Bahrain
            Brunei
            Canada
            Netherlands
            Austria
            United Arab Emirates
            Finland
            Slovenia
            Denmark
            Luxembourg
            France
            Australia
            Ireland
            Italy
            Portugal
            Cyprus
            Greece
            Spain
            South Korea
            Iceland
            Hong Kong
            Singapore
            Switzerland
            Israel

    2. Jon Murphy

      Couple of problems, Andrew:

      1) Obamacare is anything but publicly-funded. It’s a mandate that everyone buys health insurance that covers way more than they need (seriously, I’m a single, 24-year old guy. I do not need birth control pills covered in my plan!). It does nothing to add to the existing medical infrastructure (in fact, it will detract from it, given the exchanges’ cost cutting measures are already driving away doctors and the medical device tax will discourage innovation).

      2) Your statement is illogical. It is the Arguing from Final Consequences fallacy (confusing cause and effect).

      3) Your statement does nothing to discuss the points made here, in which Obamacare will raise costs and chase doctors away.

      1. Actually they put in a lot of subsidies – up to 400% of the poverty rate you get some government subsidy. Family of 4 in the 48 cont. States get subsidized to 94000 per year adjusted gross income. In AK and HI it goes to 108000 per year adjusted.

        1. Jon Murphy

          Right, but it is still not publicly funded. Subsidized, yes, but not funded.

          1. You might have a point – but I thought the subsidies come from the government? Are they coming from Bill Gates?

    3. Hmm, but what are you losing? I know my Grandfather in Germany benefitted because the German government forces drug companies to sell drugs below actual cost. Australia too.

      But when he needed his pacemaker replaced, they reserved it a year and a half in advance. In the USA it would take a month. This is the kind of lack of service and denial of service that makes your plan work.

      If you like that – fantastic. In the USA we have programs like that already called HMO’s

      And it looks like not all is well in Ocean either. Government plan is not doing well so they are encouraging folks to get private insurance. Hmm
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country#Australia

      Maybe we should just skip the 40 year Australian experiment and go strait to private!

      1. “Hi from Australia, where we have a publicly funded health care system as part of one of the highest standards of living in the world. And we pay about the same in tax as you. If we can do it, what’s your problem? http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50eef524ecad04766900000c-960/tax%20rates%20ranking%20100k.jpg

        Hmm, but what are you losing?

        he LIKES his country’s plan… why are you worried about what he is losing if he is not?

        “But when he needed his pacemaker replaced, they reserved it a year and a half in advance. In the USA it would take a month. This is the kind of lack of service and denial of service that makes your plan work.”

        and it costs 3 times as much – for those that can afford it and the wait period for the uninsured is much, much worse that everyone else.

        “If you like that – fantastic. In the USA we have programs like that already called HMO’s”

        and PPOs and common…

        if you are a “have” you’ll like the quick response, if you
        are a have-not, your options are worse than everyone.

        the worst options are those who not not have insurance and those that do pay twice as much as any other country.

        And it looks like not all is well in Ocean either. Government plan is not doing well so they are encouraging folks to get private insurance. Hmm
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country#Australia

        Maybe we should just skip the 40 year Australian experiment and go strait to private!

        every single OECD country on the planet has universal coverage and not a one has reverted to 3rd world status and never will.

        1. every single OECD country on the planet has universal coverage and not a one has reverted to 3rd world status and never will“…

          Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

          They never left third world to begin with…

          How come you don’t move to one of those socialist paradises you prattle on endlessly about?

          Why do you want to make this country worse than it already is?

          1. juandos: They never left third world to begin with…

            You must be using words in your own fashion. The term “first world” certainly includes the highly developed countries in western Europe. These include the U.K., Germany, and France.

      2. marque2

        Hmm, but what are you losing? I know my Grandfather in Germany benefitted because the German government forces drug companies to sell drugs below actual cost. Australia too.

        You will notice that most new, drugs are developed in the US, and that’s why.

        Other governments, including Canada, force companies to sell their products at below market prices on threat of not protecting patent rights.

        The ingredients in most drugs are relatively inexpensive and mass production is cheap. It is the long term, expensive development and testing that is most of the cost.

        Once a drug is on the market it could be easily and cheaply copied by others if not for patent protection.

        It’s that deal with the devil that makes drugs cheaper in other countries.

        But when he needed his pacemaker replaced, they reserved it a year and a half in advance. In the USA it would take a month. This is the kind of lack of service and denial of service that makes your plan work.

        Hm. Apparently the need for a replacement wasn’t urgent. I would be a little nervous knowing I had 1 1/2 years to wait for something that could kill me if it failed.

  7. Oh, BTW, you had an election and Obama won.

    1. John Dewey

      Oh, BTW, Andrew, the laws of this nation are made by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress when Obamacare was passed. They have lost seats in both houses since then, and no longer control the House of Representatives.

      Obama did not win in 2012 because Americans wanted Obamacare. He won because the Republicans stupidly nominated a candidate who could not oppose Obamacare.

      1. If that’s the case, why are you calling it Obamacare? Anyway, what’s really depressing about US politics at present is the polarisation into extremism and two camps who pathologically hate each other. This is turning a great nation into an ungovernable one. Universal health care is a basic human right and turning into a political football for short-term political capital is just crazy. Nuts. Gaga.

        1. Frequently major bills that are championed by certain presidents get nicknamed after the president. Reagan Tax cuts. Obama medical care – though Obamacare is much shorter.

          I certainly wouldn’t use a nickname as proof of anything. I don’t understand the logic that once a law is put in place it can never be changed. Laws are changed and repealed all the time. Your concept is kind of a new progressive philosophy that never existed before.

        2. Andrew,

          Yours is the frequent chant of the low information voter.
          At least you have an excuse, I guess, being from Australia.

          1. morganovich

            “Universal health care is a basic human right and turning into a political football for short-term political capital is just crazy. Nuts. Gaga.”

            ah, so you believe in slavery then?

            how else can healthcare be a “basic human right”?

            someone has to provide it.

            what of they do not want to?

            do you enslave them?

            do you take their property against their will to pay for it?

            the notion that healthcare is a right is pure nonsense.

            it is not, nor can it ever be.

            rights are negative.

            if you cannot have them alone on a desert island, they are not rights.

            if they require someone else to give up self determination or rights to property, they are not rights.

            thus, healthcare is not, nor can it ever be a basic human right.

            making it so violates those rights at a fundamental level.

            imagine you and are are alone on an island.

            i get sick and demand that you care for me event hough you can barely feed yourself.

            are you going to respect my right?

            can i require your labor and that you share your food and starve as a result?

            only people who have no understanding of how right actually work would try to claim that healthcare is a right.

        3. Andrew

          Universal health care is a basic human right…

          If you believe that your rights are inherent in your nature as a human being and are inalienable, and that we all have the same inherent and inalienable rights, then you must understand that rights are negative, not positive, and that a universal right to healthcare can’t exist because it requires someone else be forced to give it to you.

          If you believe your rights are given to you by other people, then anything is possible. For example you can have a right to own slaves if government says you do.

          1. re: ” If you believe your rights are given to you by other people, then anything is possible. For example you can have a right to own slaves if government says you do.”

            you mean like those “given” to you in the Constitution but not articulated such that they can be interpreted by different folks to mean different things?

          2. Ron H: If you believe that your rights are inherent in your nature as a human being and are inalienable, and that we all have the same inherent and inalienable rights, then you must understand that rights are negative, not positive, and that a universal right to healthcare can’t exist because it requires someone else be forced to give it to you.

            That’s only true if you reject government entirely. You are arguing from precepts very few share.

          3. Z: “That’s only true if you reject government entirely.

            Not at all. It only requires that one believe that we all have equal rights, which makes positive rights logically impossible.

            Don’t you believe in equal rights?

            You are arguing from precepts very few share.

            That may or not be true, but even if true it would be completely irrelevant. Unless, that is, you think rights are decided by the majority or by those in charge, a truly
            terrifying, tyrannical concept, and antithetical to any sense of individual autonomy and sovereignty.

            It requires some people to be more equal than others. How can you reconcile a right to healthcare with a right to not be enslaved? If, in fact, you believe we all have a right to not be enslaved.

          4. Ron H: It only requires that one believe that we all have equal rights, which makes positive rights logically impossible.

            Once you have taxation with representation, then the people will make policy determinations through their representatives, including positive rights.

            Ron H: That may or not be true, but even if true it would be completely irrelevant.

            It’s quite relevant. One can only argue from shared precepts.

            Ron H: How can you reconcile a right to healthcare with a right to not be enslaved?

            Taxation with representation is not slavery by any reasonable meaning of the terms. But that returns us to your black-and-white beliefs.

          5. Z: “Once you have taxation with representation, then the people will make policy determinations through their representatives, including positive rights.

            We don’t have taxation with representation. Someone else makes those decisions for us without our consent. We have never asked to be represented.

            If we can vote for positive rights then we can force you, against your will, to treat us for a medical condition, perhaps an unwanted pregnancy, even though you object to abortion on ethical, moral or religious grounds. We can force you to provide us with birth control even if your religious tenets absolutely forbid chemical or mechanical interference with natural conception. We can also force you to feed us, clothe us, house us, educate us, transport us, or any other thing we can pretend is an individual positive right whether you agree to it or not.

            “Force you” is the key phrase here. How is “force you” different from slavery in concept? If you cannot exercise you own will, how would you describe your condition?

            Z: “It’s quite relevant. One can only argue from shared precepts.

            Nonsense. It’s not important how many share our principles. We certainly don’t require consensus or majority agreement for our beliefs to be valid.

            Taxation with representation is not slavery by any reasonable meaning of the terms. But that returns us to your black-and-white beliefs.

            Taxation without consent isn’t reasonable, and you can’t make it so by declaring it reasonable. One group forcing its will on another is tyranny. Taking of property without consent of the owner is theft. You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, and it’s still a pig.

            If you share certain beliefs in common with others, for instance that responsibility for healthcare should be shared, why not join together with those like minded individuals and share healthcare responsibilities? Why do you think others who don’t agree should be forced to participate? If you feel those who are unable to provide for themselves need your help, why not join with all those like minded individuals to give them your help, and even solicit help from those who aren’t members of your group? What is it about controlling others that you find so appealing?

            If our views are held by so few, what possible difference could it make?

          6. Ron H: We don’t have taxation with representation. Someone else makes those decisions for us without our consent.

            If you are a citizen of one of the democratic nations of the world, you do have a say.

            Ron H: We have never asked to be represented.

            Redefining basic terminology, taxation with representation, doesn’t constitute an argument.

            Ron H: If we can vote for positive rights then we can force you, against your will, to treat us for a medical condition, …

            And make you stop when the light is red! Tyranny!!

            Ron H: It’s not important how many share our principles. We certainly don’t require consensus or majority agreement for our beliefs to be valid.

            That’s correct. However, arguments based on unshared precepts are moot.

    2. He won largely because he lied about “if you like your plan, you can keep it” and “your premiums will drop by an average of $2500.”

      If he committed the equivalent fraud in the private sector he’d be heading to the slammer alongside Bernie Madoff.

      1. Most people will not have to change plans. The grandfather clause didn’t work as effectively as they hoped, but they are implementing changes, and there may be a legislative fix. Premiums will drop due to the subsidies.

        1. There is no way to get those plans back now that they are dropped. I think the only reason the senate and president want to say insurance companies are now allowed to keep the old plans is that they know that it is impossible to bring them back – but then the Democrats would blame the insurance companies.

          This is peanuts compared to next year when corporate Obamacare takes effect. It is estimated 50 – 100 million more people will lose their insurance plan and many won’t be given corporate alternates.

        2. Z: “Most people will not have to change plans.

          Reference please.

          The grandfather clause didn’t work as effectively as they hoped,

          Do you mean allowing people to keep their current plans won’t provide the needed revenue to provide healthcare coverage to an additional 30 million people whether they want it or not?

          We all knew that from the very beginning, therefore the loud outcry of “LIAR”.

          …but they are implementing changes, and there may be a legislative fix.

          PLEASE, we beg you! DON’T help us with legislative fixes. We can’t stand the additional pain.

          Please get this: Government central planning doesn’t work! How many examples of failure all around the world do you need before you will be convinced?

          Premiums will drop due to the subsidies.

          LOL! Do you realize how stupid that sounds? How is that working in education or with any other government subsidized product or service, or for that matter in healthcare in the US before Obamacare?

          Your entire comment is dishonest propaganda, and we think you know it. We expect better from you.

          1. Zachriel: The grandfather clause didn’t work as effectively as they hoped,

            Ron H: Do you mean allowing people to keep their current plans won’t provide the needed revenue to provide healthcare coverage to an additional 30 million people whether they want it or not?

            The PPACA has an explicit grandfather clause.

            Ron H: Government central planning doesn’t work! How many examples of failure all around the world do you need before you will be convinced?

            The most successful economies in the world are combine robust markets with strong government sectors.

        3. The grandfather clause didn’t work as effectively as they hoped, but they are implementing changes, and there may be a legislative fix. Premiums will drop due to the subsidies“…

          Outstanding zach, still trying to sell the train wreck as if it were a real health care plan…

          ROFLMAO!

          Pssst zach if someone is getting a subsidy that means someone else has to pay for it…

          1. juandos: still trying to sell the train wreck as if it were a real health care plan…

            Any change to a system as large and complex as health care insurance will cause some disruption. But that shouldn’t be an excuse for paralysis.

          2. re: ” Pssst zach if someone is getting a subsidy that means someone else has to pay for it…”

            what IF you are ALREADY paying for it via EMTALA and MedicAid?

            and you’re paying twice as much for that care as other countries pay for the same?

            re: 3rd world is by far the most “free-market” of health care… would you not agree?

            re: paradise

            I’m not unhappy with where we are right now and where we are headed… not me that is complaining here…

            haven’t you noticed?

        4. mesa econoguy

          Pure bullshit.

          I have a corporate plan, and we had to change.

          Most others I know in corporate-land are changing as well.

          You’re really not very bright.

    3. morganovich

      “Oh, BTW, you had an election and Obama won.”

      spoken like a true serf.

      the whole point of rights is that they set out limits to democracy.

      the president is not some elected despot.

      congress is not unfettered.

      pure democracy is one of the nastiest forms of tyranny ever devised.

      it is only our rights that protect us from it.

      so spare us the “he got elected” nonsense.

      the entire point of the US constitution is to prevent majorities from tyrannizing minorities and taking their freedom and property.

      just because he got elected president does not mean he has unfettered power.

      if you like being a subject, hey, go for it, but do not try to foist that stuff on the US. around here, we seek to be citizens, not serfs and this progressive ideology that we all must be subject to the society and subservient to it and not it to us is not going to fly.

      it’s pure poison.

    4. BTW, there were elections in 2010 and the democrats lost heavily because of the ACA and the dems didn’t get anything in 2012 either.

      Also, just an FYI, since you seem to be completely ignorant of American politics, Obama isn’t a monarch. He doesn’t have unlimited power. In fact, being civilized adults we have a written constitution that explicilty limits the presidents and in fact the entire federal government.

      We get it. You’re Australian and want daddy government to take care of you, since you can’t sack up and take responsibility for your own life. But in America, we do things differently. We’re a better class of people than you Australians and think that people should take individual responsibilty for their individual decisions.

      1. Ken

        . In fact, being civilized adults we have a written constitution that explicilty limits the presidents and in fact the entire federal government.

        Oh Gee, if only that was true. I guess we have one, but it doesn’t appear to have the effect you say.

  8. : 80% of physicians said they believe patients will pay more for health care under the new law, while 76% said overall health-care costs would increase.

    Medical cost inflation is at its lowest in the last 50 years.

    1. What? Where do you get that. My medical plans have gone up 50% each year for the last two years to cover the Obamacare mandates.

      Now if I get a similar plan on the exchange the cost will go up yet another 50%.

      I didn’t know in debates you could just make stuff up. The only reason my costs may be the same as last year, is because of the rebates, and I need to figure out about how much I will make next year. (My income is always in flux, it could be from 52K – 120K next year assuming I have a job for a full year) If I split the middle with a gold plan even with the government subsidy it will be higher. – Though I am going to try to earn only 52K.

      1. marque2: What? Where do you get that.

        It’s widely reported.

        Health Care Cost Inflation Is Tumbling
        http://www.businessinsider.com/what-health-care-cost-inflation-means-2013-10

        1. Even if that was true, that ain’t what Obama promised:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4

          1. Most people will pay lower premiums due to the subsidies. As to the exact average difference, that is still uncertain, but in states with working exchanges, premiums are generally lower than predicted.

          2. Jon Murphy

            Paul, it is true but it is not due to Obamacare (only an idiot could think that). It is due to a huge number of drug patients expiring, allowing the market to be flooded with much cheaper generics.

          3. Zach,

            Most people will pay lower premiums due to the subsidies.

            Arithemtic fail: if taxes go up to pay for those subisidies for premiums, the price for premiums has gone up. Hiding those costs in taxes doesn’t change that basic fact.

          4. Arithemtic fail: if taxes go up to pay for those subisidies for premiums, the price for premiums has gone up. Hiding those costs in taxes doesn’t change that basic fact.

            what if the money comes from less payments to hospitals for uncompensated ER care and savings from larger insured pools?

            do you really know where the funding actually comes from?

          5. Ken</b: Arithemtic fail: if taxes go up to pay for those subisidies for premiums, the price for premiums has gone up.

            Apparently you don’t know what is meant by an insurance premium.

          6. morganovich

            “Most people will pay lower premiums due to the subsidies. As to the exact average difference, that is still uncertain, but in states with working exchanges, premiums are generally lower than predicted.”

            this is simply false.

            if average payments are going up 41% and most people are going to pay less, then someone is seeing payments nearly double.

            the notion that subsidy is the same as reduced cost is ridiculous.

            someone is still paying it, but, of course, if it is not the user, it results in even less efficient consumption decisions.

            you are being very dishonest and misleading here zach.

            you’re just trying to play a financial shell game and call it savings.

          7. morganovich

            “what if the money comes from less payments to hospitals for uncompensated ER care and savings from larger insured pools?”

            it can’t.

            unpaid hospital bills in the us were $41bn in 2012.

            that is a miniscule fraction of the additional costs.

            it’s not even 2% of medical spending.

            from that, you’re going to cover a 41% rate hike?

            talk about arithmetic fail.

          8. The Cost Of Subsidies

            But the authors of the Affordable Care Act didn’t want the subsidies to become a drain on the Treasury and add to the deficits. So they included provisions designed to offset the cost of the subsidies.

            MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies.

            “The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans,” he says. “Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes.”

            Those provisions actually make the bill a net positive for the federal budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. By the CBO’s accounting, Obamacare will produce a surplus. Gruber says the law will “actually lower the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade and by $1 trillion in the decade after.”

            However, many Republicans have expressed skepticism about those findings.

          9. Z: “Apparently you don’t know what is meant by an insurance premium.

            And based on your comments here, you apparently don’t know what is meant by insurance.

        2. Z: “It’s widely reported.

          Health Care Cost Inflation Is Tumbling

          Tumbling? You’ve got to be kidding. The article you cite and the chart it contains show *minor* changes in the *rate* at which healthcare prices are increasing since 2006, and doesn’t support your 50 year claim. Any slowing of healthcare cost *inflation* is almost certainly attributable to the bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. Surely you’re not suggesting that Obamacare is somehow responsible for smaller increases in the rate of healthcare inflation.

          1. Zachriel: Medical cost inflation is at its lowest in the last 50 years.

            Ron H: The article you cite and the chart it contains show *minor* changes in the *rate* at which healthcare prices are increasing since 2006, and doesn’t support your 50 year claim.

            http://bit.ly/ImfwB3

        3. morganovich: the notion that subsidy is the same as reduced cost is ridiculous.

          Nor did we say so. Costs are still increasing, though the rate of increase has slowed.

      1. Glad we are in agreement. Medical inflation has come down to its lowest in decades. You are also correct that the question is whether the generally lower rates can be sustained as the economy continues to recover.

        (The “triple” is not meaningful, but rather the difference.)

        1. “You are also correct that the question is whether the generally lower rates can be sustained as the economy continues to recover.”

          Hmm, so maybe that’s the otherwise inexplicable point of Obamanomics: to keep medical inflation down.

          1. Paul: Hmm, so maybe that’s the otherwise inexplicable point of Obamanomics: to keep medical inflation down.

            Bending the cost curve was an explicit goal of health insurance reform.

          2. re: ” Paul: Hmm, so maybe that’s the otherwise inexplicable point of Obamanomics: to keep medical inflation down.

            Bending the cost curve was an explicit goal of health insurance reform.”

            don’t matter to the haters…. their goal is not to work to improve the system – but to get government out of it and return us to 3rd world health care.

            there is no country on the planet that has non-govt, free-market health care that is not a 3rd world country yet these yahoos – that’s their plan.

            Look at the GOP. They’ve had how many years to do more like they say it should be done and what exactly have they done?

            zip.

            oh they have “ideas” – they just can’t even agree among themselves what to propose as actual legislation.

          3. Z: “Bending the cost curve was an explicit goal of health insurance reform.

            But you haven’t provided even a shred of evidence that the slightly lower rate of increase in healthcare coverage costs is related in any way to Obamacare. You keep inferring it, never supporting it. The rate of increase in the cost of almost everything is lower these days.

        2. The important thing relative inflation. How much is healthcare going up compared to everything else. I saw a stupid article about education as well. Profs patting themselves on the back because college tuition went up only 3% – well that is still twice the rate of inflation.

          1. marque2: that is still twice the rate of inflation.

            That is still the wrong measure. When general inflation is low, as it is now, the ratio exaggerates the difference. The arithmetic difference is less now than in previous years.

          2. morganovich

            but with wages still declining, the costs are actually going up MORE in terms of earnings power.

            you seem determined to find a slanted comparison to use here zach.

            further, as the big cost for most people is the insurance itself, your whole line of argument is missing the key issue as well as trying to claim that price drops that occurred BEFORE the policy went into place were driven by the policy.

            then you ignore the fact that care is going to become much harder to get.

            docs are simply not going to take these plans.

            it’s be like medicaid.

            good luck finding a gp, much less a specialist.

            it’s just another form of rationing.

            and so, even if costs are flat, the fact that you cannot get care means that the insurance prices per actual unit of care are going to soar.

            entry to a buffet where all the plates are empty is not a good deal, even at a lower price.

          3. morganovichK: but with wages still declining, the costs are actually going up MORE in terms of earnings power.

            Real wage growth has been static for a decade. Bending the medical inflation curve down improves the situation.

          4. morganovich

            but this “bending” has not happened yet.

            the obamacare prices are nowhere near 80% of the market and have not even hit the individual market yet.

            you are taking credit for a recession as medical policy.

            any obamacare bending that occurs will be due to wait times and overall costs are going to rise, not fall.

            you are trying to claim that you can price fix and not get a market response.

            you can’t.

            doctors are not going to take this. the insurance will be far less useful.

            this bends the curve the wrong way. the insured pay more and get less when buying insurance.

            further, wait times are a real cost and will damage outcomes.

            this will not bend the curve down, it will just fragment the market making the sort of care we have now more expensive and making the exchange covered plans into a form of wait list rationing like the nhs.

            that, of course, causes serious long term costs by not catching things early and dealing with maintenance.

          5. Z: “That is still the wrong measure. When general inflation is low, as it is now, the ratio exaggerates the difference. The arithmetic difference is less now than in previous years.

            What nonsense. The ratio is the ratio. Twice the rate of general inflation is twice the rate of general inflation. the difference would appear to be exaggerated when both rates are higher, as the numerical difference would be greater.

            You should remember, when you’re tempted to write such nonsense, that this is an econ blog, and some (but not all) readers can actually do arithmetic.

          6. Ron H: The ratio is the ratio.

            Ron H: The article you cite and the chart it contains show *minor* changes in the *rate* at which healthcare prices are increasing since 2006

            The rate of medical inflation is less than a third of what it was in 2006.

            (Ratios are not always a useful measure. If general inflation was 0.01% and medical inflation was 0.1%, they would be roughly equivalent, even though the latter is ten times the former.)

          7. Z: “That is still the wrong measure. When general inflation is low, as it is now, the ratio exaggerates the difference.

            Z: “If general inflation was 0.01% and medical inflation was 0.1%, they would be roughly equivalent, even though the latter is ten times the former.

            Which of these directly opposing statements do you want to go with?

          8. Ron H: Which of these directly opposing statements do you want to go with?

            They are the same position. The ratio exaggerates the divergence when the denominator is low. In the example, most would consider the inflation rates to be negligible in both cases, the ratio being meaningless noise due to the small denominator.

          9. Z: “They are the same position. The ratio exaggerates the divergence when the denominator is low. In the example, most would consider the inflation rates to be negligible in both cases, the ratio being meaningless noise due to the small denominator.</i

            Heh. You must not understand what you’ve written.

    2. morganovich

      zach–

      “Medical cost inflation is at its lowest in the last 50 years.”

      what an extraordinarily indigenous response.

      so, a policy that has not started yet is somehow to take the credit for these low rates?

      are you seriously trying to argue that obamacare is going to make health care cheaper?

      it’s not.

      it can’t.

      it mandate more care in plans, care than many of us do not want.

      that costs money.

      sure, it can mandate low rates to doctors, but it cannot make them take it.

      wait until you see how hard it is to find someone to take this insurance you are required to buy.

      higher insurance prices for plans that far fewer will take and long waits for care that will start to look like canada of the nhs?

      sure, that’s going to be great.

      you are trying to take credit for something obamacare had nothing to do with and then ignore the overwhelming evidence on what it is doing to the price of insurance.

      then you say things like “subsidies will keep costs low”(which is not true) as though those subsidies appear from thin air and are not costs borne by someone else.

      1. morganovich: so, a policy that has not started yet is somehow to take the credit for these low rates?

        Many cost-cutting measures of the PPACA have already taken effect. As for the cost of insurance, insurance companies have looked at the data, made estimates, sized up their competition in the exchanges, then have priced their policies for the next year accordingly. So yes, the markets are in effect.

        morganovich: it can’t.

        Of course it can. It’s called competition.

        morganovich: then you say things like “subsidies will keep costs low”(which is not true) as though those subsidies appear from thin air and are not costs borne by someone else.

        Um, that quote does not appear elsewhere on this thread. Total health care spending ≠ individual premium costs.

        1. morganovich

          “Many cost-cutting measures of the PPACA have already taken effect. As for the cost of insurance, insurance companies have looked at the data, made estimates, sized up their competition in the exchanges, then have priced their policies for the next year accordingly. So yes, the markets are in effect. ”

          complete nonsense.

          it has not even hit the corporate plan market yet (70-80% of the market) and the new price schedules for exchange plans to not hit until next year.

          you are just making stuff up here zach.

          you either know absolutely nothing about medical insurance or you are being deliberately false.

          competition?

          no. there is less, not more. docs simply will not work for those rates. they told you so in the survey above.

          44% fewer available docs is not going to help.

          and you did say:

          “Most people will pay lower premiums due to the subsidies”

          which is completely false and ignores the fact that this means someone has to pay in any event.

          you then went on to say:

          “but in states with working exchanges, premiums are generally lower than predicted.”

          which is also false.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

          the average state is seeing a 41% hike in insurance costs for the individual market.

          did you seriously think you could slip that total whopper by us?

          so what, you claim is that a 41% jump in cost can be mostly mitigated by “subsidies” and this this is not actually a huge jump in costs because we are mugging someone else to pay for it?

          that’s as dishonest as it is untrue.

          1. morganovich: the average state is seeing a 41% hike in insurance costs for the individual market.

            The survey you cite uses and apples and oranges comparison.

          2. mesa econoguy

            It actually has hit corps, morganovich.

            We had to switch plans (worse coverage, higher premiums and much, much higher deductibles), making his statement that “most people won’t have to switch plans” complete bullshit.

          3. Interesting. Do you have examples?

  9. Regarding the link for ‘Atlanta Business Chronicle‘ I got a page not found error…

    Was this the story for that link?

    Dave Williams – Nov 19, 2013: Survey: Docs don’t like Obamacare

    Of the 3,072 practicing physicians in all 50 states who completed the survey, conducted Nov. 8-12, 59 percent said they opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at the time Congress was debating and adopting the legislation, while only 26 percent supported the measure….

  10. Jon Murphy

    Ok, one more rant and then I am (probably) done:

    This whole ACA thing is rather typical of the “progressive” thinking: if there is a problem, rather than address it, let’s expand it!

    Problem: health insurance is too expensive.
    Solution: Expand it’s influence by making everyone get it!

    Problem: Government is in bed with business
    Solution: Give business more access to government!

    Problem: people are starving
    Solution: make food more expensive!

    This kind of thinking dominates both the Republican and Democrat parties (really, they are two sides of the same coin). There is no logic behind it. There is no reasoning. Much of it relies strictly on sophism and praying on the ignorance of voters (which, if you ask me, is especially insidious).

    For a group that likes to think of themselves as being “scientifically driven”, they sure love their scientism.

    1. Jon Murphy

      I made an apostrophe error. I beg your forgiveness, Dr. Perry.

    2. Actually – no “expand” , but fix.

      but if one is predisposed against any/all forms of universal health care – there is no good answer anyhow.

      On that side the answer is simple – kill it.

      no other solutions are needed and none are proffered other than to get govt out of it all together –

      the only problem with that is about 80% of voting citizens disagree with it and anyone who runs for elected office promising to do what Libertarians want – is dead meat – a hero to the Libertarians perhaps but dead meat as far as accomplishing anything other than wacko bird status.

      you can blame this on “progressives” sure enough but the working definition includes most of the population on the planet when it comes to health care.

    3. Jon Murphy: Problem: health insurance is too expensive.
      Solution: Expand it’s influence by making everyone get it!

      There are a number of causes for the high expense of health care, including free riders. Hence, the need for universal coverage.

      Jon Murphy: Problem: Government is in bed with business
      Solution: Give business more access to government!

      That seems contrary to usual progressive history, which is to regulate business. Indeed, progressivism grew out of the movement to limit the influence of business on government.

      Jon Murphy: Problem: people are starving
      Solution: make food more expensive!

      Not sure about this one either. Generally, progressives want to provide basic sustenance for free to the poor.

      1. Jon Murphy

        Case in point, Zach. Case in point.

        As to the food, I am referring, of course, to the price controls the government has in place, forcing up prices. the idea is, you make food more expensive, farmers will grow more (since they have more profits). It’s leftover from the Great Depression.

        1. I guess Jon missed this:

          Happy Easter: Enjoy your cheap eggs and food, they’re more affordable now than ever before

          http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/happy-easter-enjoy-your-cheap-eggs-and-food-theyre-more-affordable-now-than-ever-before/

          ” And it’s not just egg prices that have fallen over the last 100 years – most food products have gotten increasingly more affordable over time relative to other goods and services, and relative to our incomes. The bottom chart above shows that household spending on food (both at home and away from home) has never been more affordable as a share of our disposable income than in the last decade based on USDA data through 2011. Food expenditures as a percent of disposable income were in double-digits for the entire 20th century, and were above 20% for most of the 1929-1952 period. It’s only since 2000 that spending on food has fallen below 10% of disposable income, and it’s been between 9.7% and 9.8% for the last decade. ”

          does that mean the govt price controls worked?

          1. Jon Murphy

            Seriously, why do you insist on deliberately avoiding discussing the topic? Why do you insist on throwing about red herrings whenever you can?

            How fucking stupid are you?

          2. about as fucking stupid as this:

            ” As to the food, I am referring, of course, to the price controls the government has in place, forcing up prices. the idea is, you make food more expensive, farmers will grow more (since they have more profits). It’s leftover from the Great Depression.”

            you make these dumbass false statements, JOn.

          3. morganovich

            jon-

            did he seriously just argue that setting high prices drives prices down?

          4. Jon Murphy

            yes, Morganovich. yes he did.

          5. re: ” yes, Morganovich. yes he did”

            actually was quoting Mark Perry’s article in response to Jon’s claim that govt involvement increases prices.

            the govt has been involved in agriculture for a long time and Mark Perry says we have the lowest prices ever.

            how can that be if the govt is involved?

          6. Harold Saxon

            This is getting painful, so I’m just going to put the idiot out of his misery rather than watch him miss the blindingly obvious:

            Food is cheaper, but still higher than it would be naturally due to price supports.

          7. re: ” This is getting painful, so I’m just going to put the idiot out of his misery rather than watch him miss the blindingly obvious:

            Food is cheaper, but still higher than it would be naturally due to price supports.”

            where is it cheaper and more available?

          8. Harold Saxon

            We really need to start making stupidity painful.

          9. morganovich

            j+h-

            because, of course, if a taxpayer pays a subsidy, that’s not actually a cost, right?

            right?

            guy?

            and, of course, it’s not that food prices have gone down, it’s that wages have risen so much.

            seriously, why do you talk to that guy?

            he seems unable to even string together a coherent thought.

          10. all I did was quote Mark Perry on food prices… I never made any claims.

            want me to quote more?

          11. Harold

            We really need to start making stupidity painful.

            I can only say that it’s been tried, and doesn’t work in this case.

        2. Jon Murphy: Case in point

          Not sure what you mean.

          Jon Murphy: As to the food, I am referring, of course, to the price controls the government has in place, forcing up prices. the idea is, you make food more expensive, farmers will grow more (since they have more profits). It’s leftover from the Great Depression.

          It was meant to create a more consistent market. Previously, there were dramatic changes in the availability of many critical foods, such as milk. The markets are now far larger, span the globe, and there are many substitute products, so many of these programs have outlived their usefulness.

          1. Jon Murphy

            I pointed out a number of problems, and your solutions, rather than address the problem is to expand the problem.

          2. Z: “It was meant to create a more consistent market.

            Yes. It was very sensible to dump millions of gallons of milk on the ground and slaughter millions of pigs to maintain high prices for farm products while elsewhere people couldn’t find enough to eat.

            But what the heck, their intentions were pure, eh?

            There’s no problem too great or too small for a government solution.

            I think that’s Jon’s point.

          3. Jon Murphy: I pointed out a number of problems, and your solutions, rather than address the problem is to expand the problem.

            You ignored our response.

            Ron H: It was very sensible to dump millions of gallons of milk on the ground and slaughter millions of pigs to maintain high prices for farm products while elsewhere people couldn’t find enough to eat.

            They tossed out millions of gallons of milk under the free market as well, as the market careened from surplus to shortages. As milk was essential for children, and as children have to eat every day, stabilization had immediate benefits.

          4. Z: “They tossed out millions of gallons of milk under the free market as well, as the market careened from surplus to shortages. As milk was essential for children, and as children have to eat every day, stabilization had immediate benefits.

            That’s not even a response. Did you intend to write something meaningful?

          5. Ron H: That’s not even a response.

            Of course it was a response. You pointed to waste due to price supports. We noted there was extensive waste without price supports. While both policies resulted in waste, price supports provided a more even supply for urban populations.

      2. morganovich

        “There are a number of causes for the high expense of health care, including free riders. Hence, the need for universal coverage.”

        nonsense.

        the biggest cost driver IS insurance.

        people have no idea what they pay for care.

        the docs don’t know either.

        it is the buffet structure and a lack of incentive to shop on price that causes the problems.

        the obamacare solution to this is to create massive waits for care and ration it like canada or the NHS.

        they can stipulate low prices, but they cannot make docs take them.

        this plan will massively reduce the amount of healthcare available to those on the exchange plans.

        they are going to turn out to be of far lesser value than advertised.

        what good is insurance that you cannot use because the line to see a doctor that actually takes it in 6 months long?

        watch and see.

        it’s coming.

        then the progressives who made this mess will try to call it a market failure and use it to push for single payer so we ALL have to wait in such lines.

        1. morganovich: the biggest cost driver IS insurance.

          It is certainly a big effect. Another is simply the technical advances that people want.

          morganovich: the obamacare solution to this is to create massive waits for care and ration it like canada or the NHS.

          No. The Obamacare solution is to create a more transparent marketplace for shopping for insurance. It’s a very incremental approach, and doesn’t address the concern that insurance buffers market forces.

          1. morganovich

            “No. The Obamacare solution is to create a more transparent marketplace for shopping for insurance. It’s a very incremental approach, and doesn’t address the concern that insurance buffers market forces.”

            this is utterly false.

            obamacare is about forcing people to give up plans they like to buy features they do not want and to force those who do not have insurance to buy it while actually disincentivizing them from doing so by adding in “must issue” provisions that allow them to wait until somehting expensive has already happened.

            it disrupts the marketplace, limits choice, redistribute wealth, and breaks the fundamental system around insurance.

            there is a reason that costs in mass spiked and are, by a huge margin, the most expensive in the us.

            it’s because they already tried this.

            we already know what happens.

            costs soar, the number of docs drops, you get long waits, less choice, and worse care.

            price fixing at low levels just exacerbates all this. now, instead of paying for insurance that at least will get you in to see a specialist, you get to struggle to find one then wait in long lines.

            the better path would be NOT to mandate coverages or pricing but to further deregulate, shift towards HSA’s, higher deductibles, more cash pay, and greater flexibility in what is sold including across state lines.

            obamacare got it all precisely wrong.

            worse, it’s designed to break.

            it cranks up costs then taxes cadillac plans, so it is simultaneous the bulldozer and the cliff that will force private insurance to fail.

            even just cpi will eventually push plans over and get them taxed at 40%.

            mandatory coverage etc make it impossible to stop this.

            this is not a free market, competition based plan.

            it’s federal requirements and price fixing.

            everyhting about the way the plan was sold was a lie, and this was obvious to anyone with a modicum of business savvy from the word go.

            the fact that folks like zach are still pushing buying into these untruths int he face of so much evidence is truly amazing.

          2. morganovich: obamacare is about forcing people to give up plans they like to buy features they do not want and to force those who do not have insurance to buy it while actually disincentivizing them from doing so by adding in “must issue” provisions that allow them to wait until somehting expensive has already happened.

            The primary purpose of the PPACA is to move towards universal health care insurance, while bending the cost curve down, primarily by moving the health provision market from fee-for-service to accountable outcomes.

          3. No. The Obamacare solution is to create a more transparent marketplace for shopping for insurance“…

            Hey zach if you’re dumb enough to buy into that reasoning would you be interested in buying my shares in a bridge that crosses the Mississippi between Missouri and Illinois?

            Give me a little lead time so I can print those shares up nice and proper like…

          4. morganovich

            “The primary purpose of the PPACA is to move towards universal health care insurance, while bending the cost curve down, primarily by moving the health provision market from fee-for-service to accountable outcomes.”

            do you actually believe that?

            because that is sure not how it is designed.

            if you really want to bend a cost curve, you need to use cash pay, not more insurance and price fixing.

            give people an incentive to shop on price and doctors and incentive to compete on it.

            cash pay health care behaves like a technology good.

            it keeps getting better and cheaper.

            you have this precisely backwards zach.

            obamacare is designed to completely break the private insurance market in the us in a way that progressives can call a “market failure” despite it being their deliberate act and then use to push for signle payer.

            it’s just a trojan horse.

            it was sold to the public using a pack of lies and completely fake financial info, and now that we are seeing the reality, this is very clear.

            the fact that you cannot see this baffles me.

            you are still believing the lies.

            all one need to do look as massachusetts to see how this plays out.

            soaring costs, plummeting care quality, long waits, no docs for exchange plans, the healthy do not sign up to get robbed, and the sick us it in droves including buying insurance, getting treatments, then dropping back out until they need it again.

            why carry comp insurance on your car when they have to sell it to you after you have an accident and cover the crash?

          5. Morganovich,

            “It’s just a trojan horse.”

            I suspect Zach knows that, but he’s sticking to the current batch of lies until Obamacare fully implodes. At that point, he and the rest of the Left will immediately move the goalposts to arguments for single-payer as a way to “fix” the crisis.

            Baby steps.

          6. “The Obamacare solution is to create a more transparent marketplace for shopping for insurance.”

            Which is why they concocted a 2,000 page bill, now up to 20,000 pages including regulations.

            To make the market place more transparent.

            Click here for a visual of that sweet, sweet, Obamacare transparency.

          7. Z: “It is certainly a big effect. Another is simply the technical advances that people want.

            You are correct on this one point – congratulations – that tremendous advances in medical technology have increased the cost of medical care. Many diseases and conditions that were previously untreatable are now routinely cured and corrected, and we welcome those advances despite the higher costs. Lives are now saved and quality of life improved in cases that only decades ago had no solutions at any price.

            However – if we look at typically uninsured procedures that require cash payment and for which customers shop for price, such as lasik eye surgery and most elective cosmetic surgeries, we find that prices are lower even as technology has improved. Once again proving that free markets in which consumers vote with their dollars is a much better system than central planning.

          8. morganovich: if you really want to bend a cost curve, you need to use cash pay, not more insurance and price fixing.

            Unfortunately, it’s hard to shop for medical care when they bring you unconscious into the emergency room. Even in the best of circumstance, medicine is not a product most people are adept at shopping for; and most people don’t think people should be left to die if they are too poor to afford treatment.

            Ron H: However – if we look at typically uninsured procedures that require cash payment and for which customers shop for price, such as lasik eye surgery and most elective cosmetic surgeries, we find that prices are lower even as technology has improved.

            The vast majority of people reject completely free markets for essential health care. It turns out that solving the problem of plague in poor neighborhoods is good for the rich people too.

          9. Zachriel and the mouse in his pocket said:

            Unfortunately, it’s hard to shop for medical care when they bring you unconscious into the emergency room.

            I’ve been to the doctor quite a few times in my life. Not once has it been because I was wheeled in unconscious. I can’t think of anyone off-hand I know of who has had that experience either. So why should we blow up the current system for that extremely rare occurrence?

            Oh, because you really want Single-Payer.

            Even in the best of circumstance, medicine is not a product most people are adept at shopping for;

            If they aren’t “adept” it’s because they haven’t had much experience with it due to our screwed up mostly 3rd party payer system. But people shop around for medical products involving Lasik and cosmetic surgery all the time. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma posts prices for procedures right on their website(and it works. I guess CGI Federal didn’t win that contract.)

            http://www.surgerycenterok.com/

            Insurance is a product that Obama admitted the other day he and his flunkies just learned(!) is “extremely complicated to buy.” That didn’t stop him from pissing away billions on some spectacularly failed exchange websites to help people become more “adept” at purchasing it.

          10. Z: “The vast majority of people reject completely free markets for essential health care. It turns out that solving the problem of plague in poor neighborhoods is good for the rich people too.

            Does that mean you have no actual meaningful response to my comment about costs?

          11. Paul: I’ve been to the doctor quite a few times in my life. Not once has it been because I was wheeled in unconscious.

            Try the emergency room. Many people are brought in for emergency care who either don’t have insurance, don’t have their insurance card handy, or are unconscious.

            Ron H: Does that mean you have no actual meaningful response to my comment about costs?

            We don’t disagree that markets are often effective at distributing resources. The problem is that modern medical care is not a free market, nor can it be and still have the values that most people (present company excluded) consider paramount.

          12. morganovich

            zach-

            “Unfortunately, it’s hard to shop for medical care when they bring you unconscious into the emergency room”

            more emotional grandstanding to avoid the facts.

            what, this happens to you a lot?

            you think THAT is the big issue in health care costs?

            pure obfuscation from a guy with a losing argument.

            “The vast majority of people reject completely free markets for essential health care.”

            who cares?

            if the vast majority of people rejected your right to free speech, would you shut up?

            this is not a hive, it’s a society of individuals possessed of liberty.

            you seems to have spent too much time pretending to be some sort of john c wright-esque plural social composition to remember this.

            the key to liberty and prosperity is rights, not forcing the will of the majority onto others in violation thereof.

            healthcare is a technology business.

            yet it fails to behave like one.

            prices soar, you get rationing, and consumption not based on costs benefit.

            this is BECAUSE folks like you keep getting their way.

            the regulations ARE the problem.

          13. morganovich

            “We don’t disagree that markets are often effective at distributing resources. The problem is that modern medical care is not a free market, nor can it be and still have the values that most people (present company excluded) consider paramount.”

            which is precisely why you should stop trampling on the rights of others and let the market work.

            instead, you seek to trample more to fix the damage of the last trampling.

            you’ll chase these values through recursive rounds of damaging intervention until you destroy the market entirely.

          14. morganovich

            “Try the emergency room. Many people are brought in for emergency care who either don’t have insurance, don’t have their insurance card handy, or are unconscious. ”

            no, many are not.

            very few are.

            and hey, stuff like this happens.

            your car can break down on a lonely highway in the middle of nowhere.

            there may only be one garage.

            you may not like the rates.

            tough.

            that’s no reason to regulate the whole auto repair industry.

            you are trying to take 1% of medical costs and use it to justify wrecking the other 99.

            pure obfuscation.

          15. morganovich: what, this happens to you a lot?

            We told you where you could find the answer. We can’t make you open your eyes, though.

            morganovich: you think THAT is the big issue in health care costs?

            Of course it’s a big issue. That’s why President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment Act.

            Zachriel: The vast majority of people reject completely free markets for essential health care.

            morganovich: who cares?

            Apparently “most people” (present company excepted, of course).

            morganovich: this is not a hive, it’s a society of individuals possessed of liberty.

            If you mean the U.S., it’s a representative democracy, yes.

            morganovich: the key to liberty and prosperity is rights, not forcing the will of the majority onto others in violation thereof.

            Sure, but all rights have limitations. Taxation is an obvious limitation on property rights.

            morganovich: which is precisely why you should stop trampling on the rights of others and let the market work.

            Good luck with trying to convince people that all government is tyranny. Most people may be peeved from time-to-time at their government, but most recognize its necessity and benefit.

          16. ” morganovich: which is precisely why you should stop trampling on the rights of others and let the market work.

            Good luck with trying to convince people that all government is tyranny. Most people may be peeved from time-to-time at their government, but most recognize its necessity and benefit.”

            not Morg or ROn… or others.. NO WAY…

            Govt IS Tyranny!

            Govt would FAIL if it did not have “police power”.

            the Founding Fathers were total screw-ups for setting up a country where people could vote … terrible precedent!

            by neglecting to actually articulate specific “rights” and just alluding to “inalienable” which can be interpreted by voters – it was a disaster because it allowed the SCOTUS to gut the Constitution….

            we are now governed by MOB RULE and Morg totally rejects it!

            no matter there is no other place on the planet earth that works the way he thinks it should.. that’s clearly an appeal to practice!

          17. Larry G: not Morg or ROn… or others.. NO WAY…

            Arguments depend on their precepts. If you don’t accept the precepts, then the argument is moot.

          18. morganovich

            zach-

            you have no veered into pure rhetoric and misuse of facts to avoid truths you do not want to accept.

            the anecdote you are clinging to is not a serious driver of health care costs.

            the us constitution does NOT establish a representative democracy. it establishes a republic where the rights of the individual stand ABOVE the will of the demos.

            what you are describing are not rights, they are privileges.

            their limitation is a dire prospect to be gravely regarded and rarely employed.

            oh, and nice straw man on the “all government is tyranny”.

            you use an extremely dishonest style of debate.

          19. morganovich

            “morganovich: you think THAT is the big issue in health care costs?

            zach: Of course it’s a big issue. That’s why President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment Act. ”

            as the old saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

            emergency care is 1.9% of us healthcare spending.

            to attempt to describe that as a “big issue” in overall health care costs makes you either dishonest or innumerate.

            no way you can “bend the cost curve” by addressing sub 2% of spending.

            and thus, another progressive trope falls apart upon contact with actual data.

          20. morganovich

            “Sure, but all rights have limitations. Taxation is an obvious limitation on property rights. ”

            pure begging of the question.

            you use the existence of a thing to justify the existence of a thing.

          21. morganovich: you use the existence of a thing to justify the existence of a thing.

            No, we’re just reminding the reader that you consider any taxation to be tyrannical. While no one is particularly fond of taxation, most people realize that it is a necessity, at the very least, to protect the balance of rights.

          22. morganovich

            z-

            “All taxation transfers wealth. The government builds a road here, not there. It buys guns from this manufacturer, not that one. The first government insurance mandate was enacted in 1790.”

            now you are muddling a huge number of factors.

            taxation is an evil that is, in a few cases, warranted.

            to the extent that it can be done in the form of user fees, it should.

            roads should be paid for with user fees.

            there are few exceptions like police, courts, and national defense where this is simply not feasible and the need to protect rights with such institutions outweighs a rights usurpation.

            to have the right protected at all, one needs those things, and thus, without them, you lose more rights than you gain.

            but for something like healthcare subsidy, this is not the case.

            that is a pure mugging.

            armalite does not get to vote itself your money.

            obamacare recipients do.

            it’s completely avoidable tyranny of the majority that will jack up overall costs by taking from a minority without its consent.

        2. morganovich

          zach-

          you have no veered into pure rhetoric and misuse of facts to avoid truths you do not want to accept.

          the anecdote you are clinging to is not a serious driver of health care costs.

          the us constitution does NOT establish a representative democracy. it establishes a republic where the rights of the individual stand ABOVE the will of the demos.

          what you are describing are not rights, they are privileges.

          their limitation is a dire prospect to be gravely regarded and rarely employed.

          oh, and nice straw man on the “all government is tyranny”.

          you use an extremely dishonest style of debate.

          1. morganovich: the us constitution does NOT establish a representative democracy. it establishes a republic where the rights of the individual stand ABOVE the will of the demos.

            Pure semantics. The U.S. has moved towards universal suffrage, meaning it is considered a modern representative democracy. The rights of the individual are protected. The original constitution included taxation, in any case.

            Do you accept government taxation through the legislative process?

          2. Z: “Do you accept government taxation through the legislative process?

            Since that would require that we accept the legislative process being superior to our rights, the answer must be no.

          3. Our question was directed at morganovich.

          4. morganovich

            no zach, you are the one using a semantic dodge.

            the us is still a republic.

            attempting to use the fact that a great deal of our current government would not be in anyhting like accordance with the constitutional intent of the framers is not a demonstration that such is a good thing.

            you are just begging the question again.

            the fact that the 10th amendment is commonly ignored does not make doing do good, just, or even truly constitutional.

            then you erect yet another of your endless straw men.

            taxation is not all tyranny. i never said that and you know it.

            but taxation enacted by a majority to transfer wealth to itself from a minority without the consent of that minority?

            yes.

            that is tyranny.

            it’s mob rule using coercive power to legalize what is basically a mugging.

          5. re: ” but taxation enacted by a majority to transfer wealth to itself from a minority without the consent of that minority?

            yes.

            that is tyranny.

            it’s mob rule using coercive power to legalize what is basically a mugging.”

            by that definition, any law that is passed and supported by the majority is – tyranny.

            even though it worked exactly as designed by the fore fathers..

            this is the wackadoo world of folks like Morg.

            they basically oppose the way the country was designed.

          6. morganovich: the us is still a republic

            Yes, a democratic republic.

            morganovich: taxation is not all tyranny. i never said that and you know it.

            No, we confused your position with that of Ron H. Have you discussed your position with him, by the way?

            morganovich: but taxation enacted by a majority to transfer wealth to itself from a minority without the consent of that minority?

            All taxation transfers wealth. The government builds a road here, not there. It buys guns from this manufacturer, not that one. The first government insurance mandate was enacted in 1790.

          7. morganovich

            z-

            “All taxation transfers wealth. The government builds a road here, not there. It buys guns from this manufacturer, not that one. The first government insurance mandate was enacted in 1790.”

            now you are muddling a huge number of factors.

            taxation is an evil that is, in a few cases, warranted.

            to the extent that it can be done in the form of user fees, it should.

            roads should be paid for with user fees.

            there are few exceptions like police, courts, and national defense where this is simply not feasible and the need to protect rights with such institutions outweighs a rights usurpation.

            to have the right protected at all, one needs those things, and thus, without them, you lose more rights than you gain.

            but for something like healthcare subsidy, this is not the case.

            that is a pure mugging.

            armalite does not get to vote itself your money.

            obamacare recipients do.

            it’s completely avoidable tyranny of the majority that will jack up overall costs by taking from a minority without its consent.

          8. morganovich: taxation is an evil that is, in a few cases, warranted.

            And in a democratic society, whether it is warranted or not is determined by a constitutional process.

          9. morganovich

            “And in a democratic society, whether it is warranted or not is determined by a constitutional process.”

            no.

            not even close.

            which is why, in a society where rights have primacy, democracy is enjoined from engaging in such pursuits.

            what you are describing is mob rule, not liberty.

          10. morganovich: in a society where rights have primacy, democracy is enjoined from engaging in such pursuits.

            So, according to that, the U.S. has never been such a society as the U.S. Constitution has always given the legislature to determine when taxes and spending are warranted.

            morganovich: what you are describing is mob rule, not liberty.

            The U.S. Constitution is hardly “mob rule”.

    4. This whole ACA thing is rather typical of the “progressive” thinking: if there is a problem, rather than address it, let’s expand it!

      Bingo. Since government regulation can right all wrongs, if a government fix is broken it can be fixed by more government fixing. (/sarc)

      This kind of thinking dominates both the Republican and Democrat parties (really, they are two sides of the same coin).

      Bingo again! The only differences between the two major parties are their slightly different priorities.

      It is abundantly clear that capitalism and free markets can, and do, provide more prosperity and better lives for more people than any other system, but of course, “Leave us alone” is antithetical to the goals of those in government.

  11. Interesting. Larry and Lyle above was saying the Obamacare plans in the exchanges pay better than medicaid rates.

    This article says otherwise.
    http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304439804579206290376860788?ref=/news-opinion-commentary

    The doctors will definitely know you are on Obamacare.

    1. Marque2 – who wrote that article?

      how do we know what ObamaCare – WILL – in the future – DO – right now?

      re:

      ” . . . or your Medicare Advantage plan. The Affordable Care Act’s deep cuts to the popular private insurance alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare are starting to burn, and seniors are starting to see higher premiums, reduced benefits and fewer choices.

      DO you know what this is? Medicare PartB pays 80% and the subscriber is responsible for 20% – so he has some skin in the game.

      Do you know what Medicare ADVANTAGE IS?

      It’s a taxpayer-subsidized gap coverage for that 20% and do you know who is getting it?

      People who make 85K in retirement income and already pay only $100 a month for full coverage, guaranteed insurance.

      do you think these folks deserve a subsidy ? What ObamaCare did was take PART of that subsidy and give it to those on Obamacare.

      re: ” The steepest funding cliff arrives for the 2015 plans that will start to be sold in September.

      And maybe not your doctor. The exchanges don’t offer what most people expect from normal commercial insurance and instead feature tighter administrative oversight of smaller groups of physicians akin to Medicaid. Clinton-era HMO-style plans are coming back, and doctor-patient relationships will be the next political casualty.”

      how do we know this is true and not just more propaganda like ” death panels”?

      “In the 1990s Americans rebelled against cost containment pressure, such as the “drive through” rules that told women to leave hospitals a day after giving birth. As beneficiaries seek care, they’ll find they can’t visit their family physicians without huge out-of-network markups, or can’t get certain procedures without prior authorization. Such methods are the only way to keep premiums affordable amid ObamaCare’s costly benefit mandates.”

      what? people think this is not going on right now BEFORE ObamaCare? We just had a huge blowup
      over Anthem changing it’s provider networks last year – and had nothing what-so-ever to do with ObamaCare and in fact was the 3rd time in the last 5 years when the doctor and provider networks changed.

      “Physician dissatisfaction. U.S. medicine is under major financial strain, but not because the government is paying for quality instead of volume as liberals claim. The fee-for-service status quo is largely intact and reimbursement is merely being squeezed down. Exchange insurance with Medicaid-style networks pays Medicaid rates, while ObamaCare’s Medicare cuts are also sending that program’s price controls to Medicaid levels.”

      Physicians opposed Medicare from the get go and they oppose what is going on now because they’re small business people and do not want anyone – the govt or competitors interfering with their businesses – so what?

      “These rates are already so low that many doctors won’t take new government patients. Look for many doctors to start to conclude they will make a better living—and have more autonomy—by opting out. ”

      don’t have that problem in the other countries right?
      we’ll make the transition in this country also.

      TRICARE – the military single payer health insurance, you won’t hear the WSJ talking about it but you ought to investigate it yourself to see the issues they are having along the same lines.

      “Providers participating in federal programs are subject to onerous quality-reporting rules, even if the metrics don’t accurately measure quality. The Affordable Care Act treats health professionals like robots on a factory line who can be reprogrammed to execute federal work orders.”

      it works the same way with private insurance. I’ve had both Each one has it’s own “onerous” rules and the doctor has to deal with all of them.

      do you have insurance? surely if you do – you know the private companies have “rules” and you get these little notices that say:

      charges, … insurance paid, balance, your cost…etc

      don’t you get these?

  12. MacDaddyWatch

    Once you cheapen yourself in the eyes of the public–like a politician acquiring the deserved reputation of being an untrustworthy liar–confidence in him is destroyed and the road back to recovery is impossible.

    Obama is no longer a Lame Duck; he’s a Dead Duck.

    1. re: ” Obama is no longer a Lame Duck; he’s a Dead Duck.”

      perhaps but as bad as he might be, he did not send thousands of young people to their death and dismemberment over a lie.

      1. he did not send thousands of young people to their death and dismemberment over a lie“…

        spam boy larry g caught lying again as usual…

        Just like your man-crush, the Kenyan Kommie Klown, blaming just Bush for what Dems and Repubs voted for in Congress…

        So spam boy, do you think its possible for you to pull out of your normal position and grab a dose of reality?

        1. Juandoze – are you showing ALL the folks who were convinced by the same conniving LIE?

          No matter how you cut it – thousands of young people die and got sliced and diced for what?

      2. So after a long thread of lies, logical fallacies, and the old “monkey see, monkey do” stand-by, the halfwit-liberal troll falls back to the moth-bitten non-sequitur for Obama fanboys:

        “What about George Bush?”

        Hey asshole, Bush hasn’t been President for 5 years.

        1. Yes, but I still blame bush for john roberts.

          1. Heh! Good point. :)

          2. Touche!

  13. It’s worse than 44% of an already too small number of physicians not participating.

    Since some of the participating physicians are only participating because of previous contractual obligations, the number of willing physicians is actually much smaller. In New York, 23% of physicians have confirmed participation and a full 75% of this minority are doing so only because they are forced to. So, the tiny minority of doctors that will see you are doing so under duress. That spells trouble for patient care.

    Worse still is that doctors’ biggest beef is with reimbursement rates. Accepting any insurance already increases the cost of running a practice by at least 40%. Meidicare and medicaid reimbursement rates are so low that doctors are forced to limit the number of M&M patients they see. Obullshitcare reimbursement rates are running as much as 70% below normal and are often at M&M lows. That’s too low to sustain a practice. So, the minority of physicians that are willing (or have to) accept the huge influx of Obullshitcare patients will have to limit the number they see. I sure hope that lump on the side of their heads is nothing serious because they face a months long wait to see a doctor.

  14. There are no countries in the world who have true non-govt-influenced “free-market” health care – whose citizens are better off – as compared to countries that do have govt-influenced health care.

    this is not a small number of countries or people as the OECD countries that DO have superior health outcomes total to only a billion or so people so there is a many-times larger potential “free-market” .

    No country that has evolved from a non-govt free market for health care to one that does have it – has “failed” and gone back to non-govt health care.

    The US opponents want the US to go back to pre-ObamaCare health care that is twice as expensive as any other OECD country in the world – to say nothing about being more expensive than all the other “free-market” countries and that US health care has a lower life expectancy of all other OECD countries on the planet as well as millions of people without insurance who have infinite wait times and no doctor will see because charity care “reimbursements” are even worse than Medicare/MedicAid/ObamaCare (which are all higher than other OECD countries).

    The opponents are not looking to improve our system – they’re hewing to a neanderthal libertarian viewpoint that if implemented would result in this country being like most 3rd world countries where people die of simple and easily treatable diseases.

    There are more than 100 countries in the world where government has little or no role in health care and not a one of these countries with their “free market” healthcare have citizen populations that are better off compared to countries that do have govt healthcare.

    that’s a reality that the opponents refuse to acknowledge and instead argue about things like reimbursement rates, wait times for ONLY countries with govt healthcare, without once citing the superior reimbursement rates and lower wait times found in countries that have free market health care and little or no government influence.

    when confronted with these things, they invariably revert to grade school name-calling tactics…

    it defines them as a group.

    1. mesa econoguy

      You do not get to choose what healthcare people get, dumbfuck. That’s not your role.

      You don’t get to ruin it for everyone else, just to satisfy your pathological need to destroy US healthcare.

      The system you just put in place against the will of the majority has failed, and will implode. This is blindingly obvious to everyone but you, and as long as you remain willfully ignorant, you will be a target.

      1. I made no choices but observed that the system was broke for a great deal of people – and getting worse not better.

        the system had winners and losers not based on individual effort but luck.

        People who changed jobs, would lose their employer-provided insurance and not able to find an affordable replacement of it even if they worked two jobs but neither provided comprehensive insurance as part of their benefit package.

        Not even employer-provided people were happy because the costs would go up and eat up whatever productivity gains that used to result in increased wages.

        It was just a question of time before more changes were inevitably because changes were already occurring and more and more people unable to keep their insurance –

        and this part is important – because private sector insurance in a free market – does exactly what it should do – it keeps it’s costs down by elimination people who increase those costs – i.e. adverse selection.

        this is how government gets into that game and the involvement of government in health care is not some accidental aberration – not when you see that every single advanced economy nation in the world – has done it and 3rd world countries have kept their free market health care systems that match their inferior economies.

        In countries with elected governance, people vote for govt-supported health care. that’s not some ideological belief – it’s the simple truth.

        The GOP since 1993 had the opportunity, multiple opportunities, to do the KIND of health care they
        believed would be better than what the Dems would do and like a lot of other things, the GOP is incapable of agreeing among themselves how to proceed.

        If was never going to be that no action was going to happen – something WAS going to change.

        the folks who cannot get insurance do vote.

        The folks who opposed ObamaCare had the opportunity to take over Congress and limit Obama to one term.

        they were outvoted.

        It’s pretty bad when the group that opposes Obama are largely wacko birds and the only one the GOP itself could agree on – through default – was the father of ObamaCare.

        those who had/have employer-provided benefit from a tax advantage that they who don’t have it – don’t get.

        dealing with that one issue by itself might have staved off ObamaCare but as I said, the GOP is basically paralyzed these days on issues like this.

        we had a bad system that was getting worse.. what we
        have now is what you get when you run legislation through an opposition gauntlet and see what survives.

        that’s the work product of those who oppose change and opposing change is a failed strategy.

        1. mesa econoguy

          You absolutely did make a choice, and your observation was faulty.

          Now, the rest of us are forced into your far inferior alternative.

          This is the problem with you ignorant regressives – you are completely blind to the third party obligations and impositions you cause with your obnoxiously shitty policy.

          What we have now is a disaster unfolding, and you’re on the hook for it.

          1. mesa econoguy: What we have now is a disaster unfolding

            That’s hardly clear. States with their own exchanges seem to be having quite a bit of success.

          2. mesa econoguy

            That’s hardly clear. States with their own exchanges seem to be having quite a bit of success.
            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24593942/board-strife-colorado-exchange-far-behind-projected-enrollment

            You are a fatuous, ignorant leftist scumbag. But I repeat myself.

          3. States with their own exchanges seem to be having quite a bit of success.

            I guess it all depends on how you define “success.”

            Oregon’s exchange has signed up zero people.

            Several states rejected Obama’s rule by decree (given in a press conference )that cancelled plans be extended for another yr.

            In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Washington state, about 23 percent of enrollees were between 18 and 34. And in Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.

            http://bigstory.ap.org/article/lack-younger-enrollees-threatens-exchanges

            Even Obama doesn’t share your optimism. He’s shifted into his specialty finger pointing mode, blaming Republicans for not helping him fix the disaster he and the Democrats unleashed by themselves.

          4. mesa econoguy: Oregon’s exchange has signed up zero people.

            Their website crashed, but not every state has that problem. Where the sites are working, people are signing up. Younger people will be more likely to sign up later in the process.

            It’s not much different than the Medicare Part D rollout; plagued with problems, lots of controversy, but working quite well now.

          5. mesa econoguy: Oregon’s exchange has signed up zero people.

            Their website crashed, but not every state has that problem. Where the sites are working, people are signing up. Younger people will be more likely to sign up later in the process.

            It’s not much different than the Medicare Part D rollout; plagued with problems, lots of controversy, but working quite well now.

            it’s just AMAZING how many are wishing as much bad luck as they can for ObamaCare and had nothing what-so-ever to say about the “rolling disaster” that Medicare Part D was when it first rolled out.

            I guess it all depends on your perspective.

            A Bush-inspired health care plan is no problem.. how many “repeals” of Medicare Part D did we see? ZIP!

            and subsidies? the worst thing that no one who blathers on ad nauseum infinitum about is Medicare Part C which is Medicare Advantage – “gap” coverage for the 20% that Part B expects the subscriber to cover – Part C uses subsidies to pay for the 20% and guess who gets it? People who make 85K in retirement income, and already only pay $100 a month for guaranteed coverage. They use the money saved to buy SUVs, Rvs and second homes…

            not a peep about Bush’s Medicare C&D from the anti-Obama blatherbutts…

          6. mesa econoguy

            It’s not much different than the Medicare Part D rollout;

            Wrong, pig.

            This horrifically botched rollout most closely mirrors the 1989 Medicare failure, which was later repealed:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/us/politics/lesson-is-seen-in-failure-of-1989-law-on-medicare.html?_r=0

            Get you history straight, dumbfuck.

          7. Reagan did that? wow!

          8. ” You absolutely did make a choice, and your observation was faulty.

            Now, the rest of us are forced into your far inferior alternative.

            This is the problem with you ignorant regressives – you are completely blind to the third party obligations and impositions you cause with your obnoxiously shitty policy.

            What we have now is a disaster unfolding, and you’re on the hook for it.”

            the original system was kaput… for more and more people.

            it was unfair and created winners and losers through bad luck and a tax code that unfairly favored employer-provided over folks who could not get it.

            it was failing… and the only question was – what could be done to get it back to something that was going to work for most people and some folks tried to do something and others did not.

            for those that did not – doing nothing – does have risks.

          9. mesa econoguy

            it was unfair
            Fuck you.

            Who the fuck appointed you the arbiter of “fair,” assface?

            Who the fuck do you think you are to destroy my family’s access to medical care, which is exactly what you have done?

            and created winners and losers through bad luck and a tax code that unfairly favored employer-provided over folks who could not get it.

            [which the people you elected helped create]

            So you replaced it with a far, far worse system that creates many more losers, and doesn’t address the stated problem of covering “30 million uninsured.”

            You are a staggeringly ignorant jackoff, in addition to being a highly offensive retarded leftist prick.

          10. it was unfair
            Fuck you.

            Who the fuck appointed you the arbiter of “fair,” assface?

            not me guy.. a lot of other people.

            Who the fuck do you think you are to destroy my family’s access to medical care, which is exactly what you have done?

            huh?

            and created winners and losers through bad luck and a tax code that unfairly favored employer-provided over folks who could not get it.

            [which the people you elected helped create]

            it was that way LONG BEFORE the election.

            “So you replaced it with a far, far worse system that creates many more losers, and doesn’t address the stated problem of covering “30 million uninsured.” ”

            either you continue to sit on a disaster or you try to change. One reason the uninsured are not getting covered is pure and simple partisan obstruction.

            “You are a staggeringly ignorant jackoff, in addition to being a highly offensive retarded leftist prick.”

            is that all you got ? ;-) pathetic.

          11. mesa econoguy

            Huh? What? Huh?

            Go play in traffic, asshole.

          12. mesa econoguy

            either you continue to sit on a disaster or you try to change.

            You don’t get to make that decision, pole smoker. You fucked it up beyond recognition, ignorant piece of shit.

            You own this, and the consequences, scumbag.

          13. what consequences?

          14. morganovich

            “That’s hardly clear. States with their own exchanges seem to be having quite a bit of success.”

            you keep repeating this false claim.

            do you think that just saying it over and over will make it true?

            is this a page from the lenin playbook?

          15. It’s not much different than the Medicare Part D rollout; plagued with problems, lots of controversy, but working quite well now.

            LOL. You live in a fantasy world. Obamacare is a trainwreck, and Democrats in swing and red districts are running for their political lives away from it. There was nothing in Medicare Part D’s rollout that compares to this.

          16. Medicare Part C – the subsidies that provided for the 20% that Part B does not cover.

            those subsidies are provided to people who make 85K in income and pay 100.00 a month for guaranteed health insurance for folks 65 and above.

            where was the outrage when Medicare Part C was passed?

          17. Idiot Troll,

            where was the outrage when Medicare Part C was passed?

            Most people probably had no idea because it disappeared into the enormous federal pile along with thousands of other bloated federal programs, taxes, and payroll for useless government employees who think they are members of the national defense.

            With Obamacare, millions of people are people are being thrown off their current plans and/or watching their premiums and deductibles skyrocket while their overall health care is about to get much shittier. Many of the people who had their policies cancelled are being forced to use a half a billion dollar website that doesn’t work despite having had more than 3 yrs to get running.

            Can your teeny pea-brain comprehend the difference?

          18. how many people were having their policies cancelled and premiums skyrocketing BEFORE ObamaCAre and did you care as much back then?

            I doubt it.

            Paul – you’re a partisan zealot, boy… little more

            you were opposed from the get go and hate and vitriol are your calling cards.

          19. mesa econoguy: This horrifically botched rollout most closely mirrors the 1989 Medicare failure, which was later repealed

            Well, it hasn’t been repealed yet. And it does have similarities to the Medicare Part D implementation in terms of the roll-out, and the complaints. A primary difference is that ObamaCare is being strenuously undermined by some states.

          20. mesa econoguy

            It is imploding. It may not have to be repealed.

            It is a piece of shit legislation written by piece of shit leftists for piece of shit leftists (like you).

            You are willfully blind, and stupid.

            ObamaCare is being strenuously undermined by some states.

            And should be undermined, and destroyed, along with all leftists who shoved it down the throats of the rest of the country.

            Obama committed criminal fraud to sell it.

          21. mesa econoguy: It is imploding. It may not have to be repealed.

            You’re not being precise, but the usual scenario for implosion is where the exchanges attract mostly those at high risk. This causes rates to rise, so healthy people avoid the exchanges. This causes more healthy people to leave the exchange, and a downward spiral. It would probably still require a change in legislation, or the subsidies could undermine the budget.

            By the way, the signal-to-noise ratio of your comments is approaching static.

          22. mesa econoguy

            I am not being precise, said the idiot?

            Obamascare is imploding.

            What about that statement is unclear? Are you that dense?

            Wait, yes, we know you are, question withdrawn.

            The exchanges are an unmitigated disaster, providers are withdrawing (which we correctly predicted some time ago), and the risk pool is highly skewed to the sick.

            There are about 50,000 other things wrong with it too. You’ll figure them out when the entire program gets switched to single payer.

            By the way, you’re a moron. Your commentary approached asinine several years ago.

          23. mesa econoguy: Obamascare is imploding. What about that statement is unclear?

            implode, collapse or cause to collapse violently inward.

            No, you were not being clear. We suggested a reading, which you seem to have adopted.

            mesa econoguy: the risk pool is highly skewed to the sick

            The long term trend isn’t known with any certainty at this point.

          24. mesa econoguy

            Shut up imbecile.

            It’s collapsing.

            Then you can shove it back up your ass where it came from….

          25. Ah yes, I see Zachriel and his pocket-pal are adopting Obama’s blame-shifting mode. Pathetic:

            A primary difference is that ObamaCare is being strenuously undermined by some states.

            Yes, the smoking crater called Healthcare.gov, spiking premiums and deductibles, millions losing their polices:

            that’s now the fault of the people who told you idiots not to do this in the first place.

          26. Zachriel: A primary difference is that ObamaCare is being strenuously undermined by some states.

            mesa econoguy: Yes

            The rollout is definitely working better in some states than in others. There are reasons for this having to do with implementation.

          27. mesa econoguy

            Bullshit, fool. You are delusional.

            It is a disaster everywhere.

            But this is only a preview to when it goes fully (non)operational. That’s when the real fun begins.

          28. mesa econoguy (paraphrased): We respectfully disagree, but have no argument to present.

            We understand.

          29. mesa econoguy

            Wow, you’re incoherent.

            You have offered zero evidence of any Obamascare “success” (because there isn’t any), and Paul & I have given you multiple examples of egregious failure, which you have apparently ignored, because you are ignorant, like all leftists.

            I most certainly do disagree with you, but not respectfully, because you deserve no respect, asshole.

            Go fuck yourself.

          30. mesa econoguy: You have offered zero evidence of any Obamascare “success” (because there isn’t any),

            Several states, including Kentucky and California, have had some success. But it’s too early to determine whether the program will work in the long run.

            mesa econoguy: I most certainly do disagree with you

            Sure, but you have yet to support your position. You might look at Kentucky’s success with their exchanges.

          31. mesa econoguy

            Delusional idiot, Paul already seriously dented your CA narrative, and if you’re touting KY as your major success, I probably recommend a different line of work.

            For the record, we predicted much of the ensuing problems with this disaster several years ago

            http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/

            As I have said all along, even if this monstrosity is able to get past Stage 1, the real fun begins with administration and processing.

            As I have also said, continuously, with extreme prejudice and contempt for all leftists, it takes a special kind of stupidity to turn over 1/6th of the economy – a massive, complex dynamic system – and turn it over to the least efficient administrator and worst economic actor in any market or other space: government.

            Congratulations, you’re criminally stupid.

          32. THe current health care system is broke – has been broke and is getting worse.

            health insurance connected to the employer is every bit the disaster that defined benefit pensions connected to the employer where.

            There are no more – “careers” with one company. People change jobs multiple times over their life and finding jobs with employer-provided health insurance is harder and harder and more as employers don’t want to hire permanent employees with “benefits”.

            People without insurance still get medical care – and we still pay for it – and when it gets delivered as urgent care, it costs 2-3 time as much as non-urgent medicare care – and we pay for it via cost-shifting which then shows up as increased costs for those who have insurance.

            those increased costs have basically wiped out the monetary benefits of improved productivity as most all of it
            goes to pay for increased insurance costs – which are, in turn, paying for the uninsured…

            that’s a broken system.

            it’s been that way since 1990 and Clinton tried to do something and was thwarted by the GOP who offered an alternative plan called an “individual mandate” but once Clinton was gone – all was forgotten and we staggered on through the Bush administration where the GOP owned the POTUS and both houses of Congress and had ample opportunity to do something “better” than ObamaCAre and they did nothing.

            Actually the did worse than nothing – they passed Medicare Parts C & D which are both additional subsidies to Medicare which already provides guaranteed health insurance for 100.00 a month to people who earn 85K in retirement income – a subsidy that already topped 5,000 per person BEFORE Medicare Part C&D were passed by BUSH & GOP.

            that’s what they did instead of doing one or more of the “ideas” that we keep hearing that we should have done instead.

            The GOP nominees were all wacko-birds of the first order except for one – who happened to be the original architect of ObamaCare in Massachusetts!

            When folks like the GOP do nothing – bad stuff can happen on the other side… the GOP had an opportunity – and they did nothing – and even now – when they could actually offer a true legislative alternative to ObamaCare – which may well get Dem support given the rollout-problems – they have nothing – zippo.

            so Paul and Mesa – go eff yourselfs.

          33. mesa econoguy

            You didn’t read Paul’s link above, moron:

            http://bigstory.ap.org/article/lack-younger-enrollees-threatens-exchanges

            In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Washington state, about 23 percent of enrollees were between 18 and 34. And in Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.

            In California, Peter Lee, director of the state-run health exchange, said his state’s outreach effort taps social media, radio and TV ads, and events at churches, community centers and other venues. To emphasize the point, Covered California included a 27-year-old man who had signed up for coverage during its news conference this week. The focus aims to counter the current trend in the state. Lee described October enrollees in California as “older people or people who have health conditions.”

            Question: given the fact that CA has the largest uninsured population, many/most of whom are low income and/or elderly, do you really think they will attract the young & healthy en masse, which is required for this mistake to work?

            Are you actually that dumb, Zach?

            Yes, yes you are….

          34. re: ” Question: given the fact that CA has the largest uninsured population, many/most of whom are low income and/or elderly,”

            who do you think is paying for these folks medical care right now, nimrod?

          35. mesa econoguy

            It wasn’t nearly as broke as what we’ve got now, dumbfuck.

            Only regressive morons like you even try to justify your fuckup here.

            There isn’t enough pig lipstick in the goddamn universe for this disaster, asshole.

            Take the rest and shove it back up your ass, from whence it came, scumbag.

          36. It wasn’t nearly as broke as what we’ve got now, dumbfuck.

            what delusional world are you living in fool?

            “Only regressive morons like you even try to justify your fuckup here.”

            the system was broke – your buddies the GOP had no solutions – the abandoned the field of play to Obama.

            “There isn’t enough pig lipstick in the goddamn universe for this disaster, asshole.”

            like, we’re going back ? hahahhahahahahhaha

            “Take the rest and shove it back up your ass, from whence it came, scumbag.”

            back at you fool.

          37. mesa econoguy

            Go to hell cocksucking freeloader.

          38. say it like you mean it you little woosie

          39. mesa econoguy

            Lartard, you and your assclown buddies advocate theft and have executed the greatest fraud in modern US history.

            At some point in the not so distant future, you’re likely going to have a serious gut check to see if you’re willing to defend that position with a gun pointed in your face.

            Are you really that committed to stealing other peoples’ productivity and access to goods and services to satisfy your pathological altruism that you’re willing to die for it?

            You’ve way overstepped your bounds with this fuckup of epic proportions, and it is only going to get much worse.

          40. mesa econoguy

            Dumbfuck, how many people did you just price out of the fucking market????

            Jesus H. Christ you’re dumb.

          41. mesa econoguy: At some point in the not so distant future, you’re likely going to have a serious gut check to see if you’re willing to defend that position with a gun pointed in your face. Are you really that committed to stealing other peoples’ productivity and access to goods and services to satisfy your pathological altruism that you’re willing to die for it?

            Seriously, you’re threatening people over a health insurance law!?

          42. mesa econoguy

            Apparently, you do not understand the extent of your own fuckup.

            Now I would never condone violence, but there are quite a few folks who are a little more irritated than I about the situation unfolding. This law is violence.

            Perhaps you should think about that.

          43. so the pissed off are going to be going around looking who to shoot?

          44. mesa econoguy

            Your guess is better than mine Lartard.

            My guess is we will go single payer quickly, and that will temporarily stabilize the mess.

            Then we’re Britain

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9365881/Hospital-closures-inevitable-and-NHS-operation-rationing-will-continue-warns-think-tank.html

          45. Why Britain?

            why not Singapore or Germany?

          46. mesa econoguy

            Because, retard, we’re committed to top-down full federal control, expanded Medicare.

            Didn’t you read the law?

            Sorry, no you didn’t, already know that.

            Once you enact a piece of shit law like this, you don’t just do a 180, idiot. We can’t go back now. It’s done, as you just said.

            The opportunity for change was last November. We’re committed fully now.

          47. Germany is not single-payer and neither is Singapore.

            Germany is individual mandate and Singapore is two-tier with universal core insurance and HSA for more.

          48. mesa econoguy

            And we will be single-payer.

            Did you not listen before, dumbass?

            Of course you didn’t.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iR_iKRKewQ

            Now they will have the votes/Obungle will take executive action.

          49. executive action to go to single payer?

            you _are_ delusional.

            it would take Congress to do that, right?

            what are you smoking boy?

          50. mesa econoguy

            You have no idea at all what is going on right now, do you, jackass?

            Fascinating.

          51. tell me, Mesa… clue me in… seriously.

          52. mesa econoguy

            clue me in…

            LMGDFAO

            Sorry, physically impossible.

            There is no configuration large enough in the known universe to “clue you in.”

            You are a mental spacetime singularity.

          53. come on Mesa…

          54. Z: “ Younger people will be more likely to sign up later in the process.” [for Obamacare]

            Well yes, when they are much older or when they become sick.

        2. Zachriel said: The rollout is definitely working better in some states than in others. There are reasons for this having to do with implementation.

          Well, that’s some bleeding edge information. Thanks for keeping us up to date.

          None of the so-called success stories changes the fact that Obama repeatedly lied through his teeth to get this atrocity passed, and he and his team bungled the roll-out beyond anything even the most ardent critics predicted.
          Blaming the opposition for that just makes you look like a buffoon.

          1. Paul: Thanks for keeping us up to date.

            You’re welcome. Do you have any explanation for why the rollout appears to be working so much better in some states than in others?

          2. Zach and his multiple personalities said: You’re welcome. Do you have any explanation for why the rollout appears to be working so much better in some states than in others?

            You keep offering generalities. Which, exactly? And what is your definition of success? That the state website work as well as the average porn star’s? Yes, some states, after receiving staggering sums of money, actually have exchanges that sorta work. Wow!!!

            The numbers rolling in so far that I have seen have adverse selection written all over them.

          3. Paul: You keep offering generalities.

            Actually, we asked you a question. Do you have any explanation for why the rollout appears to be working so much better in some states than in others?

            Paul: The numbers rolling in so far that I have seen have adverse selection written all over them.

            Well, that could certainly be a problem in the long run, but young and healthy people are more likely to enroll later in the process, rather than sooner. It’s too soon to tell exactly how it will pan out.

          4. Actually, we asked you a question. Do you have any explanation for why the rollout appears to be working so much better in some states than in others?

            And you gave me no benchmarks to work from. No standard of actual success. Are any states meeting Obama’s promises about what reform would look like? Absolutely not.

            But, I guess you could say California’s rollout works better than Oregon’s because Oregon’s officials did an even worse job on the website construction than Obama. On the other hand, the majority appear to be getting hosed, definitely not what Obama promised.

            I guess that’s good enough for government work and Zach and friends.

            Well, that could certainly be a problem in the long run, but young and healthy people are more likely to enroll later in the process, rather than sooner. It’s too soon to tell exactly how it will pan out.

            Well then you can’t say there’s any measure of success. A) Young and health people cannot enroll at all until the exchanges are fixed and B) Time is running out. Insurance companies are going to have to jack up rates even higher soon if they don’t get enough young and people to sign up. And the death spiral will begin..

          5. Paul: Are any states meeting Obama’s promises about what reform would look like?

            No, they’ve fallen quite short, largely due to a poor rollout of the website.

            Paul: Well then you can’t say there’s any measure of success.

            We didn’t. We said it was too soon to tell. However, because some states, such as Kentucky, are being relatively successful shows that the basic model can work.

          6. No, they’ve fallen quite short, largely due to a poor rollout of the website.

            The rollout is only part of the problem. But that we can blame on the leadership of our community organizer President who never held a real job in his life:

            “And I was meeting with folks once a month telling ‘em, ‘Make sure this works.’

            Of course, you want to blame the opposition.

            We didn’t. We said it was too soon to tell. However, because some states, such as Kentucky, are being relatively successful shows that the basic model can work.

            Love that term “relatively.” Relative to complete and utter disaster, Kentucky’s rollout has actually managed to sign some people up. But what happens when we drill down? What we see is the “young and invincible” numbers are way down below where they need to be in the bluegrass state. So we’re on death spiral watch in Kentucky. Meanwhile, ” ..The Associated Press has reported that about 280,000 Kentuckians will have to give up their current health insurance and sign up for coverage that complies with the standards of the Affordable Care Act.

            Kentucky officials say about 130,000 people will see their individual policies discontinued, while 150,000 small group policies will be canceled, AP reported.”

            Wow, such a model of success!

            You think the millions of people getting hosed by this are going to sit back and take this massive tax hike via the private sector? Obama committed what would be considered fraud in the real world in order to screw over productive American citizens so his constituents could have more free shit.

            And the biggest shoes have yet to drop.

          7. Paul: Love that term “relatively.”

            Yes. So, while you didn’t answer the question, we can conclude that the federal website problems are tangential.

            Paul: The Associated Press has reported that about 280,000 Kentuckians will have to give up their current health insurance and sign up for coverage that complies with the standards of the Affordable Care Act.

            That doesn’t support an implosion due to adverse selection. It just means people will switch to compliant policies.

          8. Yes. So, while you didn’t answer the question, we can conclude that the federal website problems are tangential.

            What was your question? Why some states have had a less dismal rollout that Obama and other states’ that blew up on the launch pad? Yes, I did answer as far as that goes, but you never demonstrated what success means, and then you retreat to “too early to tell” when I point to specifics. So if it’s too early to tell(at best), there’s nothing I can answer.

            Jesus Christ. You’re obviously much more intelligent than your lapdog Larry(which is admittedly a low bar), you should offer arguments above his IQ level.

            That doesn’t support an implosion due to adverse selection. It just means people will switch to compliant policies.

            No, the dismal numbers so far on the young and invincible do though. Which is why you just dishonestly skipped right on over that part.

            All the people getting the shaft help demonstrate Kentucky is not the success model you claim it is.

          9. Paul – I think you fundamentally don’t understand what is going to happen with people who until now could not get insurance….

            As bad as the rollout is – it will get better and when it does, the avalanche will happen.

            as far as the young and invincible are – we know their behaviors. If the states did not require them to have auto insurance, they’d not buy it. People who get mortgages would not pay for homeowners insurance if the mortgage company did not require it.

            Right now – you already pay for the uninsured as well as the young and invisible who suddenly “need” … your “help”.

            Our system was/is broke. It’s a rube goldberg system that cannot be fixed without breakage.

            your buddies, the GOP, are feckless cowards…who showed zero leadership in dealing with the issue and stood back while someone else tried – then piled on when there were problems.

            these are the folks that you’re siding with you ignorant dumbass.

        3. Mesa,

          But this is only a preview to when it goes fully (non)operational. That’s when the real fun begins.

          That’s when Obama and his minions including Zachriel and friends change their talking points to something on the order of, “we tried the marketplace and it failed. Single-Payer is the only thing that works.”

          1. mesa econoguy

            Correct, that was the end game all along.

            But looking at deranged zealots like Zach and LarryG, it is extremely difficult to discern any useful purpose for their existence at all. Their tortured, bizarre rationalization of the total, complete, utter failure of the Obamscare rollout is beyond comprehension and excuse.

            It not only makes them look like buffoons, but also makes them expendable.

      2. Idiot Troll,

        “You were opposed from the get go”

        Yeah, and I was right.

        Let that sink in, douchebag.

        You supported it not because you knew anything about it, but because it was your boyfriend’s signature issue.

        You’re a pathetic, hyper-partisan, liberal nitwit.

  15. Obamacare critics fearful of the federal government controlling one-sixth of the nation’s economy and the resulting loss of freedom have missed both the most serious threat to freedom and its likeliest victims. Obamacare stands to turn millions of our neighbors into criminals. That’s because seeking a subsidy in order to obey the mandate of — never mind afford — the Affordable Care Act (“ACA,” but referred universally as Obamacare)1 can easily put our most economically and educationally vulnerable fellow citizens on a path to jail. If this be compassion, it is true only in the same sense that euthanasia fulfills the definition.

  16. Ziad K Abdelnour: That’s because seeking a subsidy in order to obey the mandate of — never mind afford — the Affordable Care Act (“ACA,” but referred universally as Obamacare)1 can easily put our most economically and educationally vulnerable fellow citizens on a path to jail.

    Huh? Why would it result in jail?

  17. Linda Barber

    So you believe we should create laws by public consensus. Granted a majority opinion in favor is democracy not the republic we inherited what seems like ages ago. A majority is not necessarily right. You seem to be debating whether the act is working or not, not whether the Federal government had the right to inflict it upon us. I am being compelled by threat of force to do something against my will. Regardless of what a court has ruled, my right to a free-market transaction with a physician has been taken away and is unconstitutional. I grew up under the old private system. We had 3 doctors in our town, wealthy by today’s standards. They had an office, sometimes with a nurse, mostly not. They made house calls. My mother received major surgery out of state for which my father was unable to pay. My parents lived to the early 80′s, my grandmother to 91, and we were poor. Most of the high cost of medical care currently is because of past interventions by government. I see only 2 reasons why anyone supports this: They think they are getting something of value for nothing, or they see it as a way to rule other people. Call me what you like, but I believe in individual freedom, respect the right of physicians to keep the fruits of their labor, and try not to follow my baser instincts.

    1. ” I am being compelled by threat of force to do something against my will.”

      completely true and completely the way that the country that the founding fathers created – works.

      Name a country where this is not the case.

      the only difference is that some countries like this one do have a process where the voters can reject such a thing.

      You probably cannot find a single person in the country who does not object to 1. being taxed and 2. having those taxes used for a purpose for which he does not agree.

      What’s the answer?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content