No, actually the Renewal Generation was named by a Boomer (James50).

Health Care Reform Has Endangered the Democratic Majority

Poll numbers:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...plan-1130.html

The health care bill reminds me of that famous definition of a camel: "A horse designed by a committee."

Koch Industries Has Financial Stake in Derivatives and Pharmaceuticals, Not Just Oil

Health Care

Koch Industries produces through Koch Membrane Systems a vast amount of the chemicals that go into all pharmaceutical products. They are essentially a feeder for Big Pharma. The Koch Institute at MIT also has a strategic partnership with Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.

During the health care debate, pharmaceutical interests made a deal with the Obama Administration that limited their givebacks in the bill in exchange for stopping larger intrusions on their industry, like reimportation of drugs from Canada or bulk purchasing in Medicare

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/...-not-just-oil/

The Health Care Bill Explained at Last

The irony is that for all the apocalyptic rhetoric, the new health reform law is anything but radical. In fact, it closely resembles the 2006 reform in Massachusetts supported by then- governor Republican Mitt Romney.[^1] And most strikingly, it does not replace the current mix of US health insurance schemes with a single public health insurance program like Medicare. Instead, the 2010 reform legislation introduces a complex system of subsidies, mandates, regulations, and programs that build on our present patchwork arrangements and will affect Americans in different ways and at different times, depending on income, age, employment, and other considerations.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Health Care Reform Has Endangered the Democratic Majority

Poll numbers:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...plan-1130.html

The one thing that stood out to me from that article was how the GOP's approval rating fell and remained on par with that of the Dem's during the entire duration of the gulf oil spill...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not a big surprise:

Health Insurers Plan Hikes

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.

More like it, I think, the timing of this announcement and the "blame" they are putting on the reforms is a blatant attempt to turn support against health care reform and further sink the Democrats in November. These big corporations are shameless.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

More like it, I think, the timing of this announcement and the "blame" they are putting on the reforms is a blatant attempt to turn support against health care reform and further sink the Democrats in November. These big corporations are shameless.

And yet it was the big corporations that were given even more power through the so called reform. sigh

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not a big surprise:

Health Insurers Plan Hikes

Hey man. What part of "guaranteed customer-base" don't you understand?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Hey man. What part of "guaranteed customer-base" don't you understand?

The individual mandate won't kick in for years, and that's if it's not repealed in the meantime; unlike the bill as a whole, which partisans like JPT are using misleading polls to falsely indicate is much more unpopular than it is, that portion really IS unpopular. So I very much doubt if that's the motivation for the rate increases. More like: "We can get away with this, therefore we will do it." Business as usual, same-old same-old.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

More like: "We can get away with this, therefore we will do it."

Highly likely.

Of course, just having had themselves enshrined into law has got to expand their conceptions of "what we can get away with", no? None of this is happening in isolation.

"The health-care overhaul enacted last spring won't significantly change national health spending over the next decade compared with projections before the law was passed, according to government figures released Thursday.

The report by federal number-crunchers casts fresh doubt on Democrats' argument that the health-care law would curb the sharp increase in costs over the long term, the second setback this week for one of the party's biggest legislative achievements.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that insurance companies have proposed rate increases ranging from 1% to 9% nationwide that they attribute specifically to new health-law coverage mandates."

....followed by typically partisan comments from both sides.

read it here: http://bit.ly/cg2RYI

So now, the health care reform is shown to be a financial lemon. Can't we do anything right?

James50

It amazes me that people actually thought that extending coverage on private policies (such as allowing 'children' to age 26 to be covered under their parent's policy) wouldn't increase costs. Of course it's going to increase cost!

Any cost savings won't be seen for years, when other provisions of the bill take effect.

Originally Posted by James50

"The health-care overhaul enacted last spring won't significantly change national health spending over the next decade compared with projections before the law was passed, according to government figures released Thursday.

The report by federal number-crunchers casts fresh doubt on Democrats' argument that the health-care law would curb the sharp increase in costs over the long term, the second setback this week for one of the party's biggest legislative achievements.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that insurance companies have proposed rate increases ranging from 1% to 9% nationwide that they attribute specifically to new health-law coverage mandates."

....followed by typically partisan comments from both sides.

read it here: http://bit.ly/cg2RYI

So now, the health care reform is shown to be a financial lemon. Can't we do anything right?

James50

Missing the point...

The point is not simply to decrease costs, but to make healthcare reasonably affordable to as many people as possible. Cost is only one of several problems that currently exists. Healthcare as a portion of gdp seems likely to increase at least in the short term as more people begin to take care of the health concerns. It isn't immediately clear to what extent that is a problem. Currently we have a labor glut; more people employed in the healthcare industry could ultimately be a good thing.

Further, we know some individuals will have to pay more for health care. For instance, healthy people who live in a non-community rating state are currently able to obtain a plan available only to healthy people and will likely pay more under the new system. However, they will have the security of knowing they will be able to purchase a plan at any time in their life, anywhere in the country regardless of their source of income or state of health at roughly the same cost (adjusted for age of course). Further, they now have the security of knowing the plan will not cease payments to to a lifetime limit. This is a significant improvement and will remove much of the fear and uncertainty from the healthcare system!

Originally Posted by Xer H

It amazes me that people actually thought that extending coverage on private policies (such as allowing 'children' to age 26 to be covered under their parent's policy) wouldn't increase costs. Of course it's going to increase cost!

How do you measure "costs" here? For instance, do you count the out of pocket expenses of 26 year olds who are unlucky enough to contract a major illness? Do you count the lingering effects of untreated conditions due to lack of health insurance?

With many young people living with family due to the recession this seems like an excellent stop gap solution to getting many of them covered with as little administrative effort as possible. Individually they likely have very few health problems meaning in many cases the insurance companies will pay out nothing at all and families will have an increase in peace of mind. In the rare instances that a young person does get seriously sick this policy could make the difference between a life altering or even life ending experience and a quicker return to good health and the job market when conditions improve.

Originally Posted by scotths

How do you measure "costs" here? For instance, do you count the out of pocket expenses of 26 year olds who are unlucky enough to contract a major illness? Do you count the lingering effects of untreated conditions due to lack of health insurance?

With many young people living with family due to the recession this seems like an excellent stop gap solution to getting many of them covered with as little administrative effort as possible. Individually they likely have very few health problems meaning in many cases the insurance companies will pay out nothing at all and families will have an increase in peace of mind. In the rare instances that a young person does get seriously sick this policy could make the difference between a life altering or even life ending experience and a quicker return to good health and the job market when conditions improve.

We have been quoted an additional 1.5% to cover dependents until 26. We have a group of about 200.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

We have been quoted an additional 1.5% to cover dependents until 26. We have a group of about 200.

James50

Not really a big deal then?

Regardless, why do you believe them? How do you know that the 1.5% is a result of this change in particular other than the insurance company telling you it is?

Originally Posted by James50

We have been quoted an additional 1.5% to cover dependents until 26. We have a group of about 200.

It's the *individual* health policies that are skyrocketing, a lot more so than employer group policies.

What's happening is that in the bad economy, a lot of healthy and young folks feeling the pinch in this depression are dropping their unsubsidized, full-price health insurance coverage because they can't afford it. The folks with health issues and preexisting conditions are finding ways to beg, borrow or steal in order to not let their policies lapse lest they become uninsurable in the future.

The result is a huge amount of "adverse selection" occurring in the individual market, where the remaining pool of insureds is (on average) getting older and sicker. Hence the 15%, 20% and even 30% increases I've seen. Without getting into the ideology of implementation details, this points out a glaring problem with a lack of universal coverage. It's not *all* because big insurance companies are pure evil. There are very real economic forces combining with a dysfunctional individual health insurance markets that are driving legitimately higher costs for individual plans.

This is not much of an issue in the highly subsidized employer group plans, as almost no one opts out of them (unless they have a spouse with better coverage).

Originally Posted by scotths

Not really a big deal then?

Regardless, why do you believe them? How do you know that the 1.5% is a result of this change in particular other than the insurance company telling you it is?

It was an exact quid pro quo. They said if you want to cover dependents until age 26, it will be 1.5% more. If you choose to wait until the policy renews when it becomes mandatory (in our case next May), then there will be no increase.

We chose to wait.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

It was an exact quid pro quo. They said if you want to cover dependents until age 26, it will be 1.5% more. If you choose to wait until the policy renews when it becomes mandatory (in our case next May), then there will be no increase.

We chose to wait.

James50

Ah... That actually makes the point somewhat. Presumably companies that have employees with <26 year olds who would be helped by this might be more likely to make this selection. Thus the actual increase will likely be less than this, perhaps substantially.

Originally Posted by scotths

Ah... That actually makes the point somewhat. Presumably companies that have employees with <26 year olds who would be helped by this might be more likely to make this selection. Thus the actual increase will likely be less than this, perhaps substantially.

Actually, I was one of the ones that took a hit personally. My 21 year old graduated from college in June. I am paying his COBRA now at $267/mo. He finally got a job a few weeks ago, but it has no insurance. Its part of the umbilical cord along with paying for his car insurance. Now that he has an income, I am pushing for him to take over both.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Actually, I was one of the ones that took a hit personally. My 21 year old graduated from college in June. I am paying his COBRA now at $267/mo. He finally got a job a few weeks ago, but it has no insurance. Its part of the umbilical cord along with paying for his car insurance. Now that he has an income, I am pushing for him to take over both.

James50

I agree that it would be good for young people to be completely on their own as soon as possible. I just think it often isn't realistic at the present moment.

I'd rather see a very slight increase in insurance rates for those who have it at work to cover young people who don't have insurance at their place of employment than many young people simply going without. Especially those like your son who obtained a college education and got a job. He's lucky to have (a) parent(s) who can afford and are willing to contribute to keeping him insured. Many aren't that lucky especially as parents often need to pay significant amounts for the college education that precedes this first job.

Originally Posted by scotths

I agree that it would be good for young people to be completely on their own as soon as possible. I just think it often isn't realistic at the present moment.

I'd rather see a very slight increase in insurance rates for those who have it at work to cover young people who don't have insurance at their place of employment than many young people simply going without. Especially those like your son who obtained a college education and got a job. He's lucky to have (a) parent(s) who can afford and are willing to contribute to keeping him insured. Many aren't that lucky especially as parents often need to pay significant amounts for the college education that precedes this first job.

At least I got him out of the house. Based on experiences within my family and others, this is an achievement in itself.

And I agree with you - this is one of the good parts of Obamacare.

James50

Originally Posted by scotths

Missing the point...

The point is not simply to decrease costs, but to make healthcare reasonably affordable to as many people as possible. Cost is only one of several problems that currently exists. Healthcare as a portion of gdp seems likely to increase at least in the short term as more people begin to take care of the health concerns. It isn't immediately clear to what extent that is a problem. Currently we have a labor glut; more people employed in the healthcare industry could ultimately be a good thing.

Further, we know some individuals will have to pay more for health care. For instance, healthy people who live in a non-community rating state are currently able to obtain a plan available only to healthy people and will likely pay more under the new system. However, they will have the security of knowing they will be able to purchase a plan at any time in their life, anywhere in the country regardless of their source of income or state of health at roughly the same cost (adjusted for age of course). Further, they now have the security of knowing the plan will not cease payments to to a lifetime limit. This is a significant improvement and will remove much of the fear and uncertainty from the healthcare system!

As a person with a pre-existing condition, the ability to buy into this plan is a farce. Currently, if you are without health insurance for 6 months you can buy insurance from a select few companies. Going without insurance for 6 months is an extremely risky propostion. One hospitalization can put you into bankruptcy. But, if you make it six months, then these shrewd con-people can charge you, especially if you are over 55, up to 50% more for insurance. For me to purchase insurance in six months, I would be paying almost $800 a month. And that's with high co-pays and a $6,000 max out of pocket expense, before insurance starts paying. Does this look like a good deal to those of you who say we got a win with this reform?

[QUOTE=Xer H;325282]It amazes me that people actually thought that extending coverage on private policies (such as allowing 'children' to age 26 to be covered under their parent's policy) wouldn't increase costs. Of course it's going to increase cost!
QUOTE]

This is all smoke and mirrors. It only looks like reform. But in reality, it is not even a baby step toward cutting costs.

ANd as far as insuring children and young adults on parent's coverage, that's not the great reform that some of us think. Those young adults that are now allowed on their parent's insurance, are considered the healthiest ages in the population. And insurance companies compile these statistics on a daily basis to know who and who is not at the most risk for illness. That's whay rates will continue to rasise for other ages. And when those of us who have group health insurance see our rates dramatically go up and our coverage go down, we can think the reform bill.

Everyone will be affected. Hold on to your bank account, because you are about to get robbed and more taken hostage by the insurance industry.