California picks 13 healthcare plans for state run insurance market
 

hmmmmmmmm
you think California will ever go Republican again?
or Nevada, Colorado, Arizona.....oops getting ahead of myself...
dufus in Texas may regret denying all those very under insured Texans health care, not to mention upsetting the hospitals who want them.....

blue is the new color......

dufus is as dufus does.....

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/23/186303...icaid-billions

although sometimes I have the feeling he is just playing the role.....luckily for Obama Perry was inarticulate....if he had one-half Big Dawg's charisma and a bit more intellectual savvy he may have been Bubba II

No, never!!!

Purple/magenta is the new red. ;)

why are these scandals not bothering me?

Get your news from other sources then FOX and Rush maybe?




Barney

yes sir...and the knowledge that blue is spreading from the West and the East!;)

Because they aren't really scandals? Even Krauthammer and Grumpy McCain are telling the breathless conspiracy nutz to dial it back but as evidenced by Kruze Missile Ted's pronouncement today that he doesn't trust the Republican party? I guess we will be hearing about it all summer long.:(

oh Cruz is just telling Billy Bob and Jethro what they want to hear so he does not get primaried by an even more right wing Atilla the Hun.....


Cruz went to Harvard...it is all an act....
but McCain is right....do not make the GOP into something it may not be able to recover from.


I believe that scandals hit those the worst who are not already warm and fuzzy with people to begin with....like Mr. Nixon, who by the way actually obstructed justice. Bill did ok with Monica....and Obama will do ok with these.

At this point a successful implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act and Immigration Reform will be enough for Obama's legacy.

Those premiums don't seem all that great to me.

I just researched the Covered California website the other day and the premiums were reasonable... Less than half of what my premiums are now on the average. Just like ins now, the more the premium, the less the co pays and the less the premium, the more the co pays.

There will also be assistance paying for premiums for individuals who earn less than $49,000 yearly and families earning less than something I can't remember right now.

When I'm on my computer, I'll look for the link.

It's $94k for couples, IIRC.

Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought I remembered but wasn't sure.

It's a step in the right direction, I just can't get past my conviction that health care should NOT be privatized in the first place, so it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about any of this.

I'm not very enthusiastic either, but, IMHO, it's a step in the wrong direction.

Private insurance, to be largely collected by employers, enforced and cost overruns handled by the Federal government.

It's a sweetheart deal, for the insurance companies and the politicians they've bought.

If single payer is the ultimate goal, I don't see how it could have been handled much worse.

Chas

Well, seein' as how the rightwing propaganda machine nearly caused a redneck rebellion when we pushed this watered down crap through, I'm thinking we would have had to put tanks in the streets to go single payer whole hog. Of course the same machine would have declared that as a prophecy fullfilled.

This is why we have to take half measures and/or be sneaky. Because there are too many easily manipulated knotheads in this country, our friends at Crossroads GPS know it and take full advantage of it.

Happy Memorial Day!

Dave

I agree. As Bluestreak and the Prez pointed out, it's a start. I hope we realize one day that the single payer option is the way to go.
It's kind of funny how Nixon's tapes revealed that Bluecross wanted to provide less healthcare for more money to the country.
Anybody remember Ronnie Rayguns "Coffee Klatches" LP records produced by the AMA regarding the evils of socialized medicine?

Thank you, you drunken Shellback!!!

I still say that had congress had passed a FAIR single payer plan, one which not only treated me, you, and everyone from the POTUS to Otis...not to mention the sorry bastards who wrote the legislation in the first place the same...80% of Americans would be on board for it.

If you have to put tanks in the street, it means people aren't buying it.

And that means they did it wrong from the get go.

Besides, being honest and fair will get you a lot farther than being sneaky. Even my dog is smarter than that.

Chas

If the desired end, in this case "single payer", has been demonized to death by a considerable segment of our society who seems to think that EVERYTHING, including cirrhosis treatments, has to be earned and that emergency room patients are stealing from them..........................You will NEVER get 80% of the public on board for single payer.

See, the difference between you-n-me appears to be our faith in the intelligence of our fellow Americans. You seem to believe most people are smart enough. I agree. But, I think "most" is about 50.01% of us, give or take ~2%. Not the 80% you mentioned. I hold out the popularity and ardent following of our professional scaremongers and carnival barkers as stark evidence. Then there is "American Idol" and "New Jersey Housewives"..............I rest my case.

"Obamas" America = Stalins USSR? The UN is preparing to invade Lubbock?
You do realize that a lot of people actually believe this shit, don't you?

Dave

Well, maybe 80% is kind of high.

Then again, if they passed a law which mandated that congress got the same shitty health care plan that the majority of Americans have, and had to pay for it out of their hip pockets just like everyone else...it may go to 90%.

Chas

This mantra that "single payer" is the only way to go represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the health system works. Medical care is a commodity just like anything else. The cost or providing medical services rises and falls based on the laws of supply and demand, and these costs cannot be "regulated away" by adopting a single payer paradigm. Thus, the phrase "If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait until its 'free'" fits very nicely here.

In the meantime, it would appears that CA's announcement about it plans and costs was subject to a bit of "spin". Surprise, surprise.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ums-by-64-146/

Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By...

64-146%

:eek:

That will probably put the overweight and Smokers at about 200 to 250% increase... :mad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...shock/?hpid=z4

Looks like that Forbes writer wasn't comparing apples to apples.

Yeh, sure. Weren't you the guy who expressed the sentiment that workers were also simply a commodity? Why am I not surprised? I think that you've got a fundamental disregard for human beings.

“We as a society have never really said here’s what reasonable insurance is,” says Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s just been anything goes. For the first time they’re setting a minimum about what reasonable insurance should be.” They’re also setting a minimum about who should be able to get it, and at what cost. Now it really will work like Best Buy, where the price on the tag is the price everyone actually pays.
Some people will find the new rules make insurance more expensive. That’s in part because their health insurance was made cheap by turning away sick people. The new rules also won’t allow for as much discrimination based on age or gender. The flip side of that, of course, is that many will suddenly find their health insurance is much cheaper, or they will find that, for the first time, they’re not turned away when they try to buy health insurance."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...shock/?hpid=z4

Who told you that? Michelle Bachmann?:rolleyes:

Dave

A commodity? Like lumber and pipe fittings? Christ, you're unbelieveable. Is your health a commodity? Or, is that somehow different, because you're somehow more deserving than the rest of us?

Dave

The cost of health coverage and health insurance is not a function of supply and demand. It is the product of price-fixing and collusion. Health care corporations and insurers have exemptions from the antitrust laws.

Regards,

D-Ray

AP

"The Affordable Care Act — “Obamacare” to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums"

Dave, a post like this is barely worth responding to. I didn't say health is a commodity. I said medical care is a commodity. It responds to the laws of supply and demand. Hell, even PBS is willing to admit as much. Many of the items that they cite impact the supply and demand sides of the equation.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...are-costs.html

No. I think sometimes you go out of your way to mis-interpret my posts.

Cost of labor responds to the laws of supply and demand, does it not?

First, this is a blog. It is opinion.

Second, from the article:

"Here’s the first thing to know: We’re talking about a small fraction of the American health-care system. This isn’t about people on Medicare or Medicaid or employer-based insurance. It’s about people joining Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. That’s people who buy insurance on their own now, as well as some of the uninsured. In 2014, 7 million people, or 2.5 percent of the population, is expected to buy insurance through the exchanges. By 2023, that will rise to 24 million people, or 8 percent."

This is wrong. Individual policies and small group health plans, not just those sold through the exchanges, will be priced in a very different manner than they are today - as required by Obamacare - once those plans renew on January 1, 2014 and thereafter. I've posted about this in the forum before. This will be a national requirement, not limited to CA.

"Roy got his 146 percent by heading to eHealthInsurance.com, running a search for insurance plans in California and comparing the cost of the cheapest plans to the cost of the plans being offered in the exchanges. That’s not just comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing apples to oranges that the fruit guy may not even let you buy."

Roy's methodology was correct.

"That’s the catch, and it’s a big one. Click to buy the plan and eventually you’ll have to answer pages and pages of questions about your health history. Ever had cancer? How about an ulcer? How about a headache? Do you feel sad when it rains? When it doesn’t rain? Is there a history of cardiovascular disease in your family? Have you ever known anyone who had the flu? The actual cost of the plan will depend on how you answer those questions."

While its correct that these questions are allowed today, the types of questions that would be "allowed" to be asked after January 1, 2014 will be significantly limited. So, if a relatively healthy individual would have health insurance policy discounts for responding favorably to health - related questions, those discounts will not be available after January 1, 2014. This was Roy's point about the apples to oranges comparison. The "apple" of discounts for being healthy will be curtailed due to Obamacare, and the same policy will cost more after January 1 for an individual who might have otherwise benefited from those discounts.

...and that conservative writer Avik Roy's factually inaccurate piece is different how? Ezra Klein's credentials far outstrip Avil Roy's by a country mile. Try again, HR dude.

Horse hockey, my supplemental insurance's cost is strictly based on my age as is Florence's. Because she is 4.5 years younger her's is less costly even though I seldom make any claims. And there were no questions asked when I first took it out.

Want to bet? Do you think that Canadian physicians encourage malingering just for the money? I have not heard of big PhARMA pulling the products out of the country because they are told how much they can charge.

So quit,we did over ten years ago.:rolleyes:

I gotta call BS on this. The laws of supply and demand only work with an informed consumer who is able to intelligently shop for price vs. quality. If your child gets hit by a car, do you try to figure out the rate structure of every hospital and doctor in your municipality before directing the ambulance (also from the cheapest ambulance company, presumably) to the hospital and doctor who provides the best service for the money? You have no way of knowing. The purchasing methodology is quite different from buying a CD from Amazon.

I presume you saw the study of a couple weeks ago detailing how hospital costs vary widely between hospitals, frequently because of their bizarre pricing schemes to pad the bill.

Why is it that countries with single payer systems have overall health care costs as little as half of ours with better outcomes. Just coincidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/he...nditures.html/

Mayhaps you're not explaining yourself well, whell? (What the hell does that W stand for anyway, Mike.)
In terms of insurance, Patty suggested that you might be ignoring the law of large numbers? I'm guessing that she means the larger the pool, the lower the cost individually. I don't know about that as I'm just an ignorant nailpounder.

Awwww, poor baby. Whatever happened to the great individual responsibity clause in the Republican platform? :D