Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

...California reported that the rates would range from 2% above to 29% below the current market...

But Mr. Lee and his fellow regulators were making a false comparison. They weren't looking at California's lightly regulated individual insurance market that functions surprisingly well. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed...

We wouldn't be shocked if California deliberately abused statistics in the hopes that no one would notice that in some cases premiums would more than double. In any case, the turn among the liberals who touted the fake results has been educational.

They now concede that individual costs will rise but claim that it is unfair to compare today's market to ObamaCare because ObamaCare mandates much richer benefits. Another liberal rationalization is that the cost-increasing regulations are meant to help people with pre-existing conditions, so they're worth it.

So they're finally admitting what some of us predicted from the start, but that's also the policy point. Americans are being forced to buy more expensive coverage than what they willingly buy today. Liberals also argue that some of the new costs will be offset by subsidies, which is great news unless you happen to be a taxpayer or aren't eligible for ObamaCare dollars and wake up to find your current coverage is illegal...

PW is right, you post even knowing it's BS.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

PW is right, you post even knowing it's BS.

-Is it more expensive than predicted? Yes. Is it forcing people to buy a product they don't want? Yes. The only "B$" seems to be your critique. Too bad Obamacare didn't turn out the way you predicted. Told you so!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

PW is right, you post even knowing it's BS.

And just for a specific example, here is the breakdown and a total destroying of the nonsense Forbes story comparing the cost of a Calif. exchange insurance to that offered by eHealth. It is very interesting reading to see how when a Forbes anti-Obamacare analyst came out and said he was wrong about it,the magazine had to quickly circle the wagons and spin to appease their corporate elite gods -

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/for...about-obamacar

Forbes Tells The Truth, Then Lies About Obamacare

However, to get to the nut of the exchange, there's just this excerpt -

Here's your quickie bullet point rebuttal to this nonsense:

•eHealth doesn't sell long-term comprehensive health insurance policies, only short term catastrophic policies and bridge policies.
•eHealth will not consider anyone with pre-existing conditions. They point people to federal and state high-risk pools instead.
•There is a huge difference between plans with a $10,000 deductible, no coverage for doctors, no coverage for prescriptions, and only catastrophic coverage and the Obamacare Bronze or Silver plans, which provide free preventive coverage, prescription coverage, and reasonable co-payments for doctors' visits.
•Obamacare rates require a tight ratio between premiums for younger insureds and older. Older non-smokers' premiums cannot be more than 3 times the youngest insured's rate. That means that the overall base rate WILL go up to some extent, but the subsidies will likely cover more younger people and bring their costs into line with what they can afford.

Glick just brainlessly repeats wingnut garbage, adds what he considers humor, and believes he's done something.

He's a clown.

Originally Posted by playwrite

He's a clown.

He should change his name from James Glick to Charlie Brown.

or, do you remember when California was Red?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

Wonkbook: The terrible deal for states rejecting Medicaid

Curious why some hardcore conservative governors, including Jan Brewer of Arizona and Rick Scott of Florida, are fighting with their legislators to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion? A new study in the journal Health Affairs article will clear it up.

The study, by the Rand corporation, looks at the 14 states that have said they will opt out of the new Medicaid funds. It finds that the result will be they get $8.4 billion less in federal funding, have to spend an extra $1 billion in uncompensated care, and end up with about 3.6 million fewer insured residents.
So then, the math works out like this: States rejecting the expansion will spend much more, get much, much less, and leave millions of their residents uninsured. That’s a lot of self-inflicted pain to make a political point.
It’s a truism of health-care politics that the uninsured are impossible to organize. But Obamacare creates an extraordinarily unusual situation. The Affordable Care Act will implemented in states that reject Medicaid. There will be huge mobilization efforts in those states, too, as well as lots of press coverage of the new law. The campaign to tell people making between 133 and 400 percent of poverty that they can get some help buying insurance will catch quite a few people making less than that in its net. And then those people will be told that they would get health insurance entirely for free but for an act of their governor and/or state legislature.

Typically, in politics, there’s no guarantee that winning an election will get anything big done. Politicians talk about ending wars and reforming health care, but then they take office, have one meeting with the chairman of the relevant committee, and back off. Here, however, federal law already says Americans making less than 133 percent of poverty are entitled to Medicaid coverage. All that needs to happen is for recalcitrant state governors and legislators to get out of the way.The publicity the benefit will get, the value it has to the target population, and the clear political path to getting that benefit all present an extraordinary organizing opportunity.

In Texas, for instance, 38 percent of the Hispanic population is uninsured. Will having that security so near, and then learning that it’s been blocked by their government, activate that voting bloc in the way Prop 187 did in California? It’s a possibility National Journal columnist Ron Brownstein raised in a recent article. “In 1994, California Republican Gov. Pete Wilson mobilized his base by promoting Proposition 187, a ballot initiative to deny services to illegal immigrants. He won reelection that year—and then lost the war as Hispanics stampeded from the GOP and helped turn the state lastingly Democratic. Texas Republicans wouldn’t be threatened as quickly, but they may someday judge their impending decision on expanding Medicaid as a similar turning point.”

- add the potential for the GOP to come across as idiots, if not bigots, on immigration (ala Texas Senator Cruz) and we could get Blue Texas by 2016!

... many are confused?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-ads-study.php

Obamacare Foes Have Outspent Supporters 5:1 On TV Ads


Obamacare has survived a ferocious TV advertising assault from opponents that dwarfs ads defending the law by a 5:1 ratio, according to a new analysis by a media monitoring group.

Spending on campaign and issue ads referencing Obamacare in the three years since the law’s enactment on March 23, 2010, totals a whopping $475 million, Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group found.

Ads mentioning the health care law were “overwhelmingly negative” — coming in at $400 million as compared to $75 million spent portraying the law positively, the study said. Spending on such ads exceeded $250 million in 2012.

“The biggest advertisers in opposition to the ACA since its enactment have been Republican outside groups,” the Kantar analysis concluded. “The biggest advertiser in support of the law has been the US Department of Health and Human Services in a nonpolitical (judging from the buy) education campaign.”

Meanwhile, Kantar found, “Democratic candidates for office — including President Obama himself — have spent comparably little on campaign and issue advertising about the law.”

The lopsided nature of Obamacare-related TV advertising may offer some context to the law’s unpopularity in public opinion polls.

Ya think?
Duh

Originally Posted by playwrite

And just for a specific example, here is the breakdown and a total destroying of the nonsense Forbes story comparing the cost of a Calif. exchange insurance to that offered by eHealth... He's a clown.

-No:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...hy_118685.html

...eventually I found myself uninsured, and working in a job that didn’t offer a health plan. I used eHealthInsurance to shop for a plan – high deductible with a Health Savings Account attached – and found several competitive premium rates. After I went through the application process, the plan cost only slightly more than the amount quoted on the website, despite the fact that I was honest about my penchant for cigars and a pre-existing injury. I was on it for several years, and when the premiums increased slightly, I shopped around and found an even cheaper plan with thinner benefits. The only thing having a HDHP really altered about my behavior in approximately five years was that I declined an ambulance and drove myself to the hospital when I needed surgery. At no point during this time would I have qualified for a significant subsidy under Obamacare, and had premiums increased significantly, I probably would have dropped coverage, having been uninsured before and not suffering any negative consequences...

...the political success or failure of Obamacare’s model hinges on whether or not young and healthy people behave the same way as I did. The hedge against premium shock requires the Obama administration and their allies to convince young adults to sign up to ensure the risk pool has enough young and healthy people [ AKA "suckers"] buying more insurance than they may need... most young adults don’t think they need a lot of insurance, and most aren’t willing to pay a significant amount for it … and because when you step back and consider what the law is doing to individual health insurance premiums in the broad sense, there’s no question that it’s going to make insurance coverage more expensive for those who are young and healthy...

As the WSJ editorializes today: “The Affordable Care Act was sold as a tool to lower health costs... The new Democratic position is that the entitlement will do the opposite but never mind, which is at least more honest...”

...Consider the reaction from Steve Benen, a longtime liberal blogger who now works for Rachel Maddow, who attacks Roy with a callback to the “reality based” epithets of the Bush years: “I believe this is yet another data point that highlights the wonk gap… Credible policy debates are rendered impossible, not because of the chasm between the two sides, but because only one side places a value on facts, evidence, and reason.” For the sake of comparison, their bio pages inform me that Roy studied molecular biology at MIT and then the Yale University School of Medicine, while Benen was a communications director for an unsuccessful Democratic congressional campaign in Pennsylvania, but your miles may vary when it comes to how much they value facts, evidence, and reason...

Again: 1) Will most people end up paying a lot more for health insurance under Obamacare? YES. 2) Will most people be forced to buy health insurance they don't want? YES.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He should change his name from James Glick to Charlie Brown.

-It's always nice when Eric applies his astrology to practical purposes...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-...I shopped around and found an even cheaper plan with thinner benefits....

and more magic pony poo...

Dude, you are either too dumb to understand this or you are purposefully trying to obfuscate reality because you're a Dick .... Nixon. I actually believe it is both, although I do understand your being cuddle by the federal govt for most of your life may have crippled your ability to understand the real world for most people.

Yes, you can get an el cheapo catastrophic insurance plan off of eHealth - it's not going to cover anything until you are in a life-or-death situation, and good luck trying to collect! It is idiotic to compare that to a solid Bronze level plan bought off an exchange that will be closely regulated and has to cover 60% of ALL your medical costs until it reaches a maximum and then it covers 100%.

Yes, it might make sense for a perfectly healthy, non-smoking, no family history, 20-something male with no kids to buy an el cheapo catastrophic plan. BUT, why would he when most 20-somethings aren't making $45K per year and therefore can get a real insurance plan with premium payments subsidized by the govt??? The number of people you are talking about is miniscule compared to the millions that are going to get health care coverage for the first time - many at little or no cost to them.

The thing about Obamacare is as it rolls out and all the horseshit you idiots have been talking about for 5 years is seen for what it is, it's going to help put the nail into the coffin that's already being built for the GOP by demographics and your sheer stupidity on immigration, health care, 'scandal' nonsense, the economy, etc.

Can't wait.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Yes, you can get an el cheapo catastrophic insurance plan off of eHealth - it's not going to cover anything until you are in a life-or-death situation, and good luck trying to collect! It is idiotic to compare that to a solid Bronze level plan bought off an exchange that will be closely regulated and has to cover 60% of ALL your medical costs until it reaches a maximum and then it covers 100%...

-Playdude obviously didn't get it.

The facts, which even PW does not deny, is that at least 76% of Californians will see a huge increase in their rates. That doesn't necessarily mean that the other 24% get a better deal under Obamacare, only that it's a less than 60% increase. Many will be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or pay the fine (or is it a tax? The Obamanation kept changing its mind on that one...). PW can spin it any way he wants, but I'm sure 2014 will be fun, as progressives try to figure out how to blame everyone but themselves...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Playdude obviously didn't get it.

The facts, which even PW does not deny, is that at least 76% of Californians will see a huge increase in their rates. That doesn't necessarily mean that the other 24% get a better deal under Obamacare, only that it's a less than 60% increase. Many will be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or pay the fine (or is it a tax? The Obamanation kept changing its mind on that one...). PW can spin it any way he wants, but I'm sure 2014 will be fun, as progressives try to figure out how to blame everyone but themselves...

Dude, where are you getting these 'facts'???

Around 20-23% of Californians are on Medi-Cal even before the Medicaid expansion. Around 13% of them are on Medicare. There are many more people on employer-paid insurance (including huge populations of military, federal, state, county workers) than on individual plans and most employer-back insurance has nothing to do with the exchanges.

Like I said, where do you get your 'facts' and how stupid are you to believe them?

There is almost no such thing as a cheap-o catastrophic plan. Ok. Maybe there is for 20-year olds. A middle-aged friend bought insurance privately. $2500 deductible at the low, low price of $800 a month. That was the best she could find after shopping around.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Dude, you are either too dumb to understand this or you are purposefully trying to obfuscate reality because you're a Dick .... Nixon. I actually believe it is both, although I do understand your being cuddle by the federal govt for most of your life may have crippled your ability to understand the real world for most people.

Yes, you can get an el cheapo catastrophic insurance plan off of eHealth - it's not going to cover anything until you are in a life-or-death situation, and good luck trying to collect! It is idiotic to compare that to a solid Bronze level plan bought off an exchange that will be closely regulated and has to cover 60% of ALL your medical costs until it reaches a maximum and then it covers 100%.

Yes, it might make sense for a perfectly healthy, non-smoking, no family history, 20-something male with no kids to buy an el cheapo catastrophic plan. BUT, why would he when most 20-somethings aren't making $45K per year and therefore can get a real insurance plan with premium payments subsidized by the govt??? The number of people you are talking about is miniscule compared to the millions that are going to get health care coverage for the first time - many at little or no cost to them.

The thing about Obamacare is as it rolls out and all the horseshit you idiots have been talking about for 5 years is seen for what it is, it's going to help put the nail into the coffin that's already being built for the GOP by demographics and your sheer stupidity on immigration, health care, 'scandal' nonsense, the economy, etc.

Can't wait.

Originally Posted by annla899

There is almost no such thing as a cheap-o catastrophic plan. Ok. Maybe there is for 20-year olds. A middle-aged friend bought insurance privately. $2500 deductible at the low, low price of $800 a month. That was the best she could find after shopping around.

It is amazing to watch the American healthcare discussions, and read statements like this one. I prefer the far less complicated single payer Canadian universal healthcare plan, and so do the vastly overwhelming majority of Canadians. Universal healthcare is considered part of the Canadian identity, as it is so entrenched in the national consciousness.

Originally Posted by annla899

There is almost no such thing as a cheap-o catastrophic plan. Ok. Maybe there is for 20-year olds. A middle-aged friend bought insurance privately. $2500 deductible at the low, low price of $800 a month. That was the best she could find after shopping around.

I know where you're coming from on that. My Russian father-in-law, a very spry 80-something, comes to stay with us for the Winter, about 5/6 months. We thought it best to get him some catastrophic insurance. The premiums and deductable were insane. We decided to "self insure" the Russian way - I promised him all the Vodka, including by IV drip, he wanted when 'the time' comes. We're way okay with that, but we haven't exactly explain that to his daughter as of yet.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

It is amazing to watch the American healthcare discussions, and read statements like this one. I prefer the far less complicated single payer Canadian universal healthcare plan, and so do the vastly overwhelming majority of Canadians. Universal healthcare is considered part of the Canadian identity, as it is so entrenched in the national consciousness.

It really is ridiculous, isn't it? Sen. Kennedy said walking away from Nixon's Health Care plan, which was similar to Obama's, was one of the biggest mistakes of his life. Like many of Obamacare's critics, he didn't believe at the time the Nixon plan went far enough. It only took about 40 years to get anything close.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

It is amazing to watch the American healthcare discussions, and read statements like this one. I prefer the far less complicated single payer Canadian universal healthcare plan, and so do the vastly overwhelming majority of Canadians. Universal healthcare is considered part of the Canadian identity, as it is so entrenched in the national consciousness.

That's slightly less annoying than a Tahitian noting to a Canuck that they have much better beaches than Ontario.

With a Dem in the WH, a majority in the House, and 60-vote filibuster proof Senate, single payer was dropped from consideration.

With a Dem in the WH, a majority in the House, and Scott Brown rather than Ted Kennedy in the Senate, a national public option was dropped.

We still have a Dem in the WH, but the majority in the House is GOP with a influential t-baggin caucus, and the Dems are further from 60 with the possibility of losing the simple majority - Ontario has moved further north and is threatening to enter the Arctic Circle, and that Tahitian has gotten even more annoying.

Originally Posted by annla899

It really is ridiculous, isn't it? Sen. Kennedy said walking away from Nixon's Health Care plan, which was similar to Obama's, was one of the biggest mistakes of his life. Like many of Obamacare's critics, he didn't believe at the time the Nixon plan went far enough. It only took about 40 years to get anything close.

If one's memory goes way back to 2008, one may remember that Ted Kennedy was really the first big Dem to endorse Obama in the otherwise certainty of Hillary Clinton's crowning - it shook up the primary races at their foundation.

Many insiders believe that Obama's taking-on healthcare as the FIRST priority and doggedly pursuing it was a result of his promise to Kennedy at the time of that endorsement. Kennedy's widow was one of the biggest supporters of the law.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's slightly less annoying than a Tahitian noting to a Canuck that they have much better beaches than Ontario.

According to a famous Playboy magazine article, Grand Beach in Manitoba is one of the top ten beaches for women in the world.

With a Dem in the WH, a majority in the House, and 60-vote filibuster proof Senate, single payer was dropped from consideration.

With a Dem in the WH, a majority in the House, and Scott Brown rather than Ted Kennedy in the Senate, a national public option was dropped.

We still have a Dem in the WH, but the majority in the House is GOP with a influential t-baggin caucus, and the Dems are further from 60 with the possibility of losing the simple majority - Ontario has moved further north and is threatening to enter the Arctic Circle, and that Tahitian has gotten even more annoying.

The lack of political will in the USA for the demonstrably lower cost single payer system, with its real and tangible benefits to small business and individuals, is indeed amazing.

Well, in any case, Canadian business, regardless of company size, is able to out compete American business because of the lack of healthcare costs built into the overhead and the pricing. By the way, that is not a condemnation of the alleged cost increases due to the ACA, but rather systemic costs whether the ACA existed or not.

The auto industry, for example, is more than happy to reside in Ontario due to much lower healthcare costs, healthier employees because of universal healthcare, and a less polarized political environment. Entrepreneurs are able to start new businesses as they are not tied to employers solely to retain healthcare benefits.

There is also a burgeoning technology sector in Canada, fueled partly by that lack of healthcare concerns, but also due to different government conditions, employee creativity, healthy employees, a strong education system, and a lack of the "not made here" mentality, and a more laid back lifestyle in general. There is also hockey talk 24/7 as a bonus.

Canada: Where healthcare magic ponies really exist.

That's because everyone know that single payer, public option, pick whatever name you want means rationing by government bureaucrat. No matter how you phrase it, in the end it's just rationing.

Insurance is not a distribution system. Capitalism is a distribution system. Communism is a distribution system. But using insurance, which is a risk management tool, as a distribution system is simply a way to back door central control of a semi-private market. Why everything has to be one thing or another is a mystery, but some people don't like thinking of more than one thing at once so they back things that appear to simplify the world to their way of thinking.

If insurance is a good distribution system for critical life goods such as medical care, how about if we did that for food? We could have food insurance that covers the poor, and charge elderly people less than they pay now, provided that we get younger and healthier people to subsidize the older people's lifestyles and needs.

When you want breakfast, rather than going through all the trouble of going to the store and being done with it, you fill out a claim on your account (less deductible) and then wait for your response. The company either approves or denies your breakfast claim, and hopefully you are on the first step to breakfast.

Having spoken to the licensed grocer at the insurance companies' preferred food provider organization has given you a leg up. After some back and forth over the particulars of your case, the company agrees to pay part of your claim. They will not cover your Frosted Flakes, but they will cover Shredded Wheat. You can then buy some sugar out of pocket and make the service slightly more palatable, but at least the company is helping you on your way to breakfast.

Sooner or later you obtain the Shredded Wheat, trusting that your 50% reimbursement is in the mail. The licensed and board-certified grocer writes you a prescription for your breakfast, and off you go to the food pharmacy. You didn't think the grocer kept your Rx at his office did you? But still, you got half your breakfast paid for (well, minus your co pay), so you come out ahead. If only you could get other people to chip into this great program, you could get lower premiums on lunch and dinner.

Now toss government control into this scam.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If one's memory goes way back to 2008, one may remember that Ted Kennedy was really the first big Dem to endorse Obama in the otherwise certainty of Hillary Clinton's crowning - it shook up the primary races at their foundation.

Many insiders believe that Obama's taking-on healthcare as the FIRST priority and doggedly pursuing it was a result of his promise to Kennedy at the time of that endorsement. Kennedy's widow was one of the biggest supporters of the law.

My bad, I should have written, "like many of Obamacare's current critics, at that (e.g. during the Nixon administration) time Kennedy believed...etc." Obviously Ted Kennedy was a big Obama supporter and would very much have wanted to cast his vote for ACA.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

That's because everyone know that single payer, public option, pick whatever name you want means rationing by government bureaucrat. No matter how you phrase it, in the end it's just rationing.

Insurance is not a distribution system. Capitalism is a distribution system. Communism is a distribution system. But using insurance, which is a risk management tool, as a distribution system is simply a way to back door central control of a semi-private market. Why everything has to be one thing or another is a mystery, but some people don't like thinking of more than one thing at once so they back things that appear to simplify the world to their way of thinking.

If insurance is a good distribution system for critical life goods such as medical care, how about if we did that for food? We could have food insurance that covers the poor, and charge elderly people less than they pay now, provided that we get younger and healthier people to subsidize the older people's lifestyles and needs.

When you want breakfast, rather than going through all the trouble of going to the store and being done with it, you fill out a claim on your account (less deductible) and then wait for your response. The company either approves or denies your breakfast claim, and hopefully you are on the first step to breakfast.

Having spoken to the licensed grocer at the insurance companies' preferred food provider organization has given you a leg up. After some back and forth over the particulars of your case, the company agrees to pay part of your claim. They will not cover your Frosted Flakes, but they will cover Shredded Wheat. You can then buy some sugar out of pocket and make the service slightly more palatable, but at least the company is helping you on your way to breakfast.

Sooner or later you obtain the Shredded Wheat, trusting that your 50% reimbursement is in the mail. The licensed and board-certified grocer writes you a prescription for your breakfast, and off you go to the food pharmacy. You didn't think the grocer kept your Rx at his office did you? But still, you got half your breakfast paid for (well, minus your co pay), so you come out ahead. If only you could get other people to chip into this great program, you could get lower premiums on lunch and dinner.

Now toss government control into this scam.

I gave up trying to follow your analogy. I'll just remind you that there is a food insurance program - see "food stamps."

Regarding your first thought about 'rationing.' It's always there, whether its a govt bureaucracy or an insurance company bureaucrat and there's even self-rationalizing by what you willing or able to spend. If you got the money, you can overcome what rationing there is by any system. So it's a little hard to figure out what you're trying to say - maybe something along the lines of ".... and then you die" insight?

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

The lack of political will in the USA for the demonstrably lower cost single payer system, with its real and tangible benefits to small business and individuals, is indeed amazing.

That is because the people with the most political will are the ones who stand to make the most out of the existing system. Corruption, cronyism, and gouging always have their constituencies. Profit trumps all human values in a nearly-absolute plutocracy like the US. Enough of our politicians are bought as if they were whores.

Profits drive campaign contributions, and the big money in political campaigns comes from the most lucrative entities. Even if we have the worst possible (least efficient, most expensive, and most restrictive to physicians and patients) system in the world because of a cost-loading for-profit bureaucracy directing medicine, the profits fund anyone willing to deliver what the owners and executives of that cost-loading bureaucracy want.

Well, in any case, Canadian business, regardless of company size, is able to out compete American business because of the lack of healthcare costs built into the overhead and the pricing. By the way, that is not a condemnation of the alleged cost increases due to the ACA, but rather systemic costs whether the ACA existed or not.

ACA still depends upon for-profit medical insurance business, a bad model of a cost-loading bureaucracy that makes anything that depends upon it more expensive.

The auto industry, for example, is more than happy to reside in Ontario due to much lower healthcare costs, healthier employees because of universal healthcare, and a less polarized political environment. Entrepreneurs are able to start new businesses as they are not tied to employers solely to retain healthcare benefits.

True. Many GM cars for the US market are manufactured in Canada. The reason? Canadian medical costs are lower. Maybe it is because physicians do more medical care and less negotiating with the medical insurance racket. Maybe physicians don't have as many bureaucratic costs involved in dealing with insurance companies. Let physicians be physicians, and let them deal with a bureaucracy only when they take high-risk treatments or resort to quackery. I don't know, but I suspect that the DEA (which is a government bureaucracy and not a for-profit enterprise) is fairly lenient about painkillers for people with terminal cancer.

There is also a burgeoning technology sector in Canada, fueled partly by that lack of healthcare concerns, but also due to different government conditions, employee creativity, healthy employees, a strong education system, and a lack of the "not made here" mentality, and a more laid back lifestyle in general. There is also hockey talk 24/7 as a bonus.

America has been losing its manufacturing sector, and the job creation in America has largely been in jobs that few people want to make careers of due to low pay and few chances for advancement. The profiteers put profits first, and we Americans must defer. Even life must defer to profit in America. We have a fascist economy.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

That's because everyone know that single payer, public option, pick whatever name you want means rationing by government bureaucrat. No matter how you phrase it, in the end it's just rationing.

Millions swear by Medicare. It does ration, but on futile and fraudulent medical practices. People who cheat Medicare by billing for services never rendered, prescriptions and medical devices never delivered, or other fraud need to face at the least a government bureaucracy. Mistakes must be corrected (for example, if there is a coding error), but outright fraud? Some of the people doing it are former drug traffickers who found that Medicare fraud was far safer and similarly lucrative.

Insurance is not a distribution system. Capitalism is a distribution system. Communism is a distribution system. But using insurance, which is a risk management tool, as a distribution system is simply a way to back door central control of a semi-private market. Why everything has to be one thing or another is a mystery, but some people don't like thinking of more than one thing at once so they back things that appear to simplify the world to their way of thinking.

Insurance, as part of capitalism, is part of the distribution system. It hedges bets as a pool of risk. Nobody knows who faces a drunk or drugged driver, and auto insurance spreads the risk equitably and effectively.

If insurance is a good distribution system for critical life goods such as medical care, how about if we did that for food? We could have food insurance that covers the poor, and charge elderly people less than they pay now, provided that we get younger and healthier people to subsidize the older people's lifestyles and needs.

The alternative is "Make sure to have a huge amount of money in case you have a heart attack by living far beneath your means, and if you get a heart attack before you have enough money you lose both the money and your life". Insurance is one way to be sure that they can enjoy more of what they have. It's not a sexy product like clothes or cars, and it is not fun like an amusement park. But it can make it possible to wear clothes that aren't a decade old, to drive a car instead of use a bicycle or city bus that gets you where you are going in much more time, and to take vacations in fun places.[/quote]

Insurance against destitution? That is called welfare, an essential part of a community with a conscience. Of course with the Hard Right, conscience is something that the common man must exercise but that the super-rich are exempt from.

When you want breakfast, rather than going through all the trouble of going to the store and being done with it, you fill out a claim on your account (less deductible) and then wait for your response. The company either approves or denies your breakfast claim, and hopefully you are on the first step to breakfast.


Having spoken to the licensed grocer at the insurance companies' preferred food provider organization has given you a leg up. After some back and forth over the particulars of your case, the company agrees to pay part of your claim. They will not cover your Frosted Flakes, but they will cover Shredded Wheat. You can then buy some sugar out of pocket and make the service slightly more palatable, but at least the company is helping you on your way to breakfast.

Sooner or later you obtain the Shredded Wheat, trusting that your 50% reimbursement is in the mail. The licensed and board-certified grocer writes you a prescription for your breakfast, and off you go to the food pharmacy. You didn't think the grocer kept your Rx at his office did you? But still, you got half your breakfast paid for (well, minus your co pay), so you come out ahead. If only you could get other people to chip into this great program, you could get lower premiums on lunch and dinner.

Now toss government control into this scam.

Rubbish! Of course, if I had my way I would take junk food and highly-processed foods off the list of items eligible for food aid. (To make things fair one might have to allow food aid to include cooking utensils and perhaps such things as toiletries and detergents as eligible items. People on food assistance (unless disabled, for which they would get more permission) might as well learn to make their own lasagna and chow mein... and make their own chips. Farewell sodas, candy, pastries, and prepared sandwiches.

If one is poor and unemployed or underemployed one might as well apply and develop some efforts and learn some talents.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Dude, where are you getting these 'facts'...

-Makes me wonder if PW knows how Obamacare is supposed to work. Can he get it through his head that people don't want to buy this overpriced Obamacare type crap? If they did, they'd already be buying it.
2014 should be entertaining.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...I'll just remind you that there is a food insurance program - see "food stamps."

-Food Stamps are not an insurance program. They're a taxpayer funded charity.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

It is amazing to watch the American healthcare discussions, and read statements like this one. I prefer the far less complicated single payer Canadian universal healthcare plan, and so do the vastly overwhelming majority of Canadians...

...until they have a real, problem, when you see them coming to the USA for their medical care.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...until they have a real, problem, when you see them coming to the USA for their medical care.

It's tiring debunking you, but nonetheless, here's medical tourism inbound and out for the US. We lose.