Jump to content

California healthcare premiums to rise by over 50%


Recommended Posts

Of course the rate will go down. A capitalist system is consumer driven, you stop buying their chit, they drop the rates. And when you finally opt for a good socialist system you can enjoy full medical coverage for pennys a day. Its all a state of mind isn't it.

 

GOOD. I hope people die in the ER in california. you voted for change enjoy it while you gasp your last breath you liberal scum bags.

Ahh, stop being so hard on yourself Loser con. Pay those high rates to your favorite charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shin you say that silly sh*t cause you know I have more money in my pocket then you have period!

This is a completely anonymous forum so people who make unprovable claims about their superior financial or educational status have got to be very retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Forbes article on Obamacare?

 

For those interested in actual facts try this:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Fwp%2F2013%2F05%2F24%2Fwonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare%2F&ei=luSoUbrsPNT54AOt3oGACw&usg=AFQjCNFktfR_IP4TXcSXhf_VHRkC0OKTrg&sig2=dqhEXn_HGJDzndQ8KmdPqw

 

Or this:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forwardprogressives.com%2Fbad-news-for-republicans-obamacare-to-cost-americans-much-less-than-expected%2F&ei=luSoUbrsPNT54AOt3oGACw&usg=AFQjCNG7KSGZBu0vls-7bFFvWC6N8F4ZwQ&sig2=ul2DC8QBjnfjBHL1skHuDw

 

Or this:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2013%2F05%2F23%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fcalifornia-obamacare-premiums%2F&ei=luSoUbrsPNT54AOt3oGACw&usg=AFQjCNHUEzVDCvMeJR2uvrLhGq8yESayRQ&sig2=HjmcT57d527-KT5UvYTZOQ

 

Or even this:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.santacruzsentinel.com%2Fopinion%2Fci_23349106%2Feditorial-covering-californians-lower-costs-than-expected-obamacare&ei=luSoUbrsPNT54AOt3oGACw&usg=AFQjCNHSSKIMLtPtkfbOvydDN8mq3cjzvQ&sig2=NN7882-nIXNR1G8ssvb1lA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your article in Forbes, a right wing business magazine, is just stupid partisan rightwingnut propaganda from those who hate the President and are trying to sabotage or discredit his health reform program in an attempt to gain political advantage at the expense of the poorest and most medically challenged citizens of America.

 

Here's the facts from an economist who isn't a brainwashed con.

 

The Obamacare Shock

The New York Times

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 26, 2013

 

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, goes fully into effect at the beginning of next year, and predictions of disaster are being heard far and wide. There will be an administrative train wreck, were told; consumers will face a terrible shock.

 

Republicans, one hears, are already counting on the laws troubles to give them a big electoral advantage.

 

No doubt there will be problems, as there are with any large new government initiative, and in this case, we have the added complication that many Republican governors and legislators are doing all they can to sabotage reform. Yet important new evidence especially from California, the laws most important test case suggests that the real Obamacare shock will be one of unexpected success.

 

Before I can explain what the news means, I need to make a crucial point: Obamacare is a deeply conservative reform, not in a political sense (although it was originally a Republican proposal) but in terms of leaving most peoples health care unaffected. Americans who receive health insurance from their employers, Medicare or Medicaid which is to say, the vast majority of those who have any kind of health insurance at all will see almost no changes when the law goes into effect.

 

There are, however, millions of Americans who dont receive insurance either from their employers or from government programs. They can get insurance only by buying it on their own, and many of them are effectively shut out of that market. In some states, like California, insurers reject applicants with past medical problems. In others, like New York, insurers cant reject applicants, and must offer similar coverage regardless of personal medical history (community rating); unfortunately, this leads to a situation in which premiums are very high because only those with current health problems sign up, while healthy people take the risk of going uninsured.

 

Obamacare closes this gap with a three-part approach. First, community rating everywhere no more exclusion based on pre-existing conditions. Second, the mandate you must buy insurance even if youre currently healthy. Third, subsidies to make insurance affordable for those with lower incomes.

 

Massachusetts has had essentially this system since 2006; as a result, nearly all residents have health insurance, and the program remains very popular. So we know that Obamacare or, as some of us call it, ObamaRomneyCare can work.

 

Skeptics argued, however, that Massachusetts was special: It had relatively few uninsured residents even before the reform, and it already had community rating. What would happen elsewhere?

 

In particular, what would happen in California, where more than a fifth of the nonelderly population is uninsured, and the individual insurance market is largely unregulated? Would there be sticker shock as the price of individual policies soared?

 

Well, the California bids are in that is, insurers have submitted the prices at which they are willing to offer coverage on the states newly created Obamacare exchange. And the prices, it turns out, are surprisingly low. A handful of healthy people may find themselves paying more for coverage, but it looks as if Obamacares first year in California is going to be an overwhelmingly positive experience.

 

What can still go wrong? Well, Obamacare is a complicated program, basically because simpler options, like Medicare for all, werent considered politically feasible. So there will probably be a lot of administrative confusion as the law goes into effect, again especially in states where Republicans have been doing their best to sabotage the process.

 

Also, some people are too poor to afford coverage even with the subsidies. These Americans were supposed to be covered by a federally financed expansion of Medicaid, but in states where Republicans have blocked Medicaid expansion, such unfortunates will be left out in the cold.

 

Still, heres what it seems is about to happen: Millions of Americans will suddenly gain health coverage, and millions more will feel much more secure knowing that such coverage is available if they lose their jobs or suffer other misfortunes. Only a relative handful of people will be hurt at all. And as contrasts emerge between the experience of states like California that are making the most of the new policy and that of states like Texas whose politicians are doing their best to undermine it, the sheer meanspiritedness of the Obamacare opponents will become ever more obvious.

 

So yes, it does look as if theres an Obamacare shock coming: the shock of learning that a public program designed to help a lot of people can, strange to say, end up helping a lot of people especially when government officials actually try to make it work.

 

© 2013 The New York Times Company

 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your article in Forbes, a right wing business magazine, is just stupid partisan rightwingnut propaganda from those who hate the President and are trying to sabotage or discredit his health reform program in an attempt to gain political advantage at the expense of the poorest and most medically challenged citizens of America.

 

Here's the facts from an economist who isn't a brainwashed con.

 

The Obamacare Shock

The New York Times

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 26, 2013

 

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, goes fully into effect at the beginning of next year, and predictions of disaster are being heard far and wide. There will be an administrative train wreck, were told; consumers will face a terrible shock.

 

Republicans, one hears, are already counting on the laws troubles to give them a big electoral advantage.

 

No doubt there will be problems, as there are with any large new government initiative, and in this case, we have the added complication that many Republican governors and legislators are doing all they can to sabotage reform. Yet important new evidence especially from California, the laws most important test case suggests that the real Obamacare shock will be one of unexpected success.

 

Before I can explain what the news means, I need to make a crucial point: Obamacare is a deeply conservative reform, not in a political sense (although it was originally a Republican proposal) but in terms of leaving most peoples health care unaffected. Americans who receive health insurance from their employers, Medicare or Medicaid which is to say, the vast majority of those who have any kind of health insurance at all will see almost no changes when the law goes into effect.

 

There are, however, millions of Americans who dont receive insurance either from their employers or from government programs. They can get insurance only by buying it on their own, and many of them are effectively shut out of that market. In some states, like California, insurers reject applicants with past medical problems. In others, like New York, insurers cant reject applicants, and must offer similar coverage regardless of personal medical history (community rating); unfortunately, this leads to a situation in which premiums are very high because only those with current health problems sign up, while healthy people take the risk of going uninsured.

 

Obamacare closes this gap with a three-part approach. First, community rating everywhere no more exclusion based on pre-existing conditions. Second, the mandate you must buy insurance even if youre currently healthy. Third, subsidies to make insurance affordable for those with lower incomes.

 

Massachusetts has had essentially this system since 2006; as a result, nearly all residents have health insurance, and the program remains very popular. So we know that Obamacare or, as some of us call it, ObamaRomneyCare can work.

 

Skeptics argued, however, that Massachusetts was special: It had relatively few uninsured residents even before the reform, and it already had community rating. What would happen elsewhere?

 

In particular, what would happen in California, where more than a fifth of the nonelderly population is uninsured, and the individual insurance market is largely unregulated? Would there be sticker shock as the price of individual policies soared?

 

Well, the California bids are in that is, insurers have submitted the prices at which they are willing to offer coverage on the states newly created Obamacare exchange. And the prices, it turns out, are surprisingly low. A handful of healthy people may find themselves paying more for coverage, but it looks as if Obamacares first year in California is going to be an overwhelmingly positive experience.

 

What can still go wrong? Well, Obamacare is a complicated program, basically because simpler options, like Medicare for all, werent considered politically feasible. So there will probably be a lot of administrative confusion as the law goes into effect, again especially in states where Republicans have been doing their best to sabotage the process.

 

Also, some people are too poor to afford coverage even with the subsidies. These Americans were supposed to be covered by a federally financed expansion of Medicaid, but in states where Republicans have blocked Medicaid expansion, such unfortunates will be left out in the cold.

 

Still, heres what it seems is about to happen: Millions of Americans will suddenly gain health coverage, and millions more will feel much more secure knowing that such coverage is available if they lose their jobs or suffer other misfortunes. Only a relative handful of people will be hurt at all. And as contrasts emerge between the experience of states like California that are making the most of the new policy and that of states like Texas whose politicians are doing their best to undermine it, the sheer meanspiritedness of the Obamacare opponents will become ever more obvious.

 

So yes, it does look as if theres an Obamacare shock coming: the shock of learning that a public program designed to help a lot of people can, strange to say, end up helping a lot of people especially when government officials actually try to make it work.

 

© 2013 The New York Times Company

 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

OMG... Paul Krugman??? LMFAO!!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shin you say that silly sh*t cause you know I have more money in my pocket then you have period!

 

well see thar Mr. highroller, you got money to burn, so why you whining? A big bad man like you can afford to hire your own doctor to take care of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, the mandate you must buy insurance even if youre currently healthy.

Complete bullshit. People do not have to buy insurance. They can simply pay the small fine/tax, which is much, much cheaper than insurance, if they so choose. So it will still-

 

"lead to a situation in which premiums are very high because only those with current health problems sign up, while healthy people take the risk of going uninsured."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the rate will go down. A capitalist system is consumer driven, you stop buying their chit, they drop the rates. And when you finally opt for a good socialist system you can enjoy full medical coverage for pennys a day. Its all a state of mind isn't it.

 

Ahh, stop being so hard on yourself Loser con. Pay those high rates to your favorite charity.

And the cult-clinger posts. LOL

 

Complete bullshit. People do not have to buy insurance. They can simply pay the small fine/tax, which is much, much cheaper than insurance, if they so choose. So it will still-

 

"lead to a situation in which premiums are very high because only those with current health problems sign up, while healthy people take the risk of going uninsured."

In other words it is a TAX...as Obama avoided saying.

 

That's cool with the cult!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman says Surprisingly Low. That is an opinion. Low for him could be astronomical for someone else. I live in Mass. The state makes up the difference annually. Romneycare has yet to break even. Obamacare is expected to cost 1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG... Paul Krugman??? LMFAO!!!

 

It's really interesting how you retarded rightwingnuts hate and despise anyone who is much more intelligent, educated, and internationally recognized and honored than you losers are. Of course, being so retarded, like you all are, you almost certainly don't know anything factual about him, but your puppet masters have told you to hate and fear him so you blindly follow orders. He writes this article that is full of citations that support his facts but you wingnut cretins just sneer without comprehending or even trying to refute the facts he presents about the actual insurance premiums that will be offered to Californians.

 

Paul Krugman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[6]

 

Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[7][8]liquidity traps, and currency crises. He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today[9] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[10]

 

As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[11] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times.

 

Awards

 

A May, 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd. Krugman's result was found to be statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.[93]

 

Foreign Policy named Krugman one of its 2012 FP Top 100 Global Thinkers "for wielding his acid pen against austerity".[94]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when you finally opt for a good socialist system you can enjoy full medical coverage for pennys a day.

Along with the second rate doctors, lack of innovation, and third-world care, because all the good doctors are now driving taxi cabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, community rating everywhere no more exclusion based on pre-existing conditions.

That's what he promised, but that's not the reality.

 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654908.txt

 

"Due to growing concerns about the rate of PCIP spending, in February 2013, CCIIO suspended PCIP enrollment to ensure the appropriated funding would be sufficient to cover claims for current enrollees through the end of the program."

 

It's the problem with running out of other people's money, the hallmark of socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with the second rate doctors, lack of innovation, and third-world care, because all the good doctors are now driving taxi cabs.

 

Is that one of those insane rightwingnut myths you're so fond of, ImTheNitwit? Perhaps you should go and visit Canada and tell them all that their "good doctors and now driving taxi cabs" and their health care is all from "second rate doctors". LOL. You are such a good little stooge for the insurance corporation's high profits and incomplete coverage. Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care (with many of them having had it for many decades), with the United States being the lone exception.

 

Canada's Single Payer Health Care System - It's Worth a Look

Bruce Robinson

According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.

 

An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.

 

Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.

 

In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead.

 

The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors are private. Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital in the country. Each province has its own system and its own unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for treatment of any Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. The great success of their system causes almost all Canadian politicians, even conservatives, to defend it vociferously. It is called single payer because there is only one "payer"; there is no alternative program, such as private health insurance, to which Canadians can turn for basic health care. Since the wealthy as well as the middle income people have no alternative, they make sure it is funded adequately. This together with cost controls insures that everyone including the poor, who use the same system, receives the same high quality care.

 

Canada has a much higher percentage of general practitioners and fewer specialists. Canadian doctors make about one third less that American doctors and yet their satisfaction level is high because they have more time to practice medicine because paper work is minimized. Since there is a "single payer", it is easier to set up and adhere to budgetary limits. Effective planning eliminates duplication of facilities and expensive technology. In the U.S., competition has led to great redundancies in expensive equipment such as for CAT scans; doctor groups buy high technology equipment and then compete for selling these services.

 

The economic advantages of the Canadian system are multi-faceted. Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans. Preventive care to an entire population minimizes expensive care associated with undetected, untreated health problems. There is very little litigation because there is no need for awards to cover future health care costs; they are already covered. Further savings occur because there is no longer a need for a health insurance component of automobile or home insurance.

 

There is less loss of productive labor due to absence and sickness and health care is much more practical and less expensive for companies to provide to employees. Estimates show that Canadians produce American cars for $700 less than Americans do because of the difference in the costs of providing health care to employees. The benefits to competitiveness are obvious.

 

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office estimated that if we were to implement a health care system similar to the Canadian one, we could extend coverage to all Americans while saving billions of dollars annually. During the health care debate in 1993, there were 89 cosponsors of the single payer system. And yet, it was not given serious consideration. One reason for this is the well-funded health insurance power structure with its effective lobbying forces in Congress.

 

This single payer ballot issue will appear in various states in the upcoming years. It is anticipated that, just as with the 1994 California single payer ballot issue, the health industry will spend enormous amounts to defeat them. It is also anticipated that the issue will receive very little press coverage just as happened in California.

 

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) reported after studying the 1994 California ballot issue that there were no articles in the media during the entire pre-election period that pointed out that other countries have single payer systems or what their experience has been. Americans might be interested to know that Canadians live longer, have lower maternal mortality rates, and lower infant mortality. Before single payer was implemented in Canada, infant mortality was similar to that in the U.S.; today there are 9.1 deaths in the first year of life per 1000 births in the U.S. and 6.8 in Canada. In addition, they have more hospital admissions, more hospital days, more physician visits, more immunizations, and more surgical procedures per person than we have in the U.S.

 

Ongoing misinformation perpetuates myths about long wait times for care, availability of high-tech care, and the amount and quality of medical research done. There are very small differences between the U.S. and Canada in these three areas. The large differences between the U.S. and Canada are in the tens of millions of people with no coverage or inadequate coverage in the U.S. The differences are also in peoples' losing everything they have and becoming destitute to cover medical expenses in the U.S. They're in the lack of preventive care in the U.S. which results in expensive treatment of illnesses in their later stages.

 

Economic considerations are very important as are issues such as the general state of a country's health, the anxiety over health care and the level of satisfaction experienced by those in the health care industry. The economics certainly indicate that the Canadian approach should be observed and considered as a model for the U.S. The U.S. spends about $1000 per year per person more than does Canada. We have nothing to lose by giving it an objective analysis, seeking out both sides of the argument. It's worth a look.

 

Quoting a letter to the editor from Ove Madsen in the Montana Senior Voice:

  • "I have read all about the health care plans in the paper. I have done a little work to find out what the general public Canadians think about their health plan. Everytime I see a car with Canadian license plates, I go up and talk to them. They are all nice to talk with, and I ask them how they like their health care plan. So far, 99% of the Canadians I've talked to like their system. They say it is such a peace of mind and the service at the doctor's office and hospitals is really quite good. If the ordinary run of the people like it, that's all we need to know."

     

According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.

 

Ignoring the fact that a key part of the system was found to be unconstitutional and that it's in the process of collapse.

 

And that Canada's top doctor said the system is imploding.

 

What does "imploding" mean, moonbat? :glare:

 

 

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

 

You have to be stunningly stupid to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of a life-and-death issue like medical care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what he promised, but that's not the reality.

 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654908.txt

 

"Due to growing concerns about the rate of PCIP spending, in February 2013, CCIIO suspended PCIP enrollment to ensure the appropriated funding would be sufficient to cover claims for current enrollees through the end of the program."

 

It's the problem with running out of other people's money, the hallmark of socialism.

 

You're so far removed from reality, ImTheNitwit, you wouldn't know it if it bit you. Obamacare has not been implemented yet (just beginning) and it isn't running ERRP or PCIP; an agency called CCIIO of the Department of Health and Human Services is running them now temporarily. Partial incomplete quotes that distort the meaning of the whole quote are the hallmark of the manipulated rightwingnut dupes who are the "useful idiot" foot soldiers for the corporations. Let's look at what else it is saying at the website you quoted: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654908.txt

 

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

appropriated $5 billion each to establish and carry out two temporary

programs - ERRP and PCIP. ERRP reimburses sponsors of employment-based

health plans to help cover the cost of providing health benefits to

early retirees-individuals age 55 and older not eligible for

Medicare. The PCIP program is a high-risk pool that provides access to

health insurance for individuals unable to acquire affordable coverage

due to a preexisting condition. Both programs are operated by CCIIO

within CMS (an agency within the Department of Health and Human

Services) and are intended to operate through 2013, after which PPACA

will provide new insurance coverage options.

 

GAO was asked to provide updated information on ERRP and PCIP

spending. This report describes the current status of ERRP and PCIP

enrollment and spending as well as projected PCIP spending and how

CCIIO is ensuring that program funding is sufficient through 2013. GAO

obtained the most recent data available on ERRP and PCIP enrollment

and spending and on overpayments recovered from ERRP plan sponsors

during the claims adjudication process. GAO also obtained other

supporting documentation where available. GAO interviewed CMS

officials about ERRP and PCIP enrollment and spending as well as their

predictions of future PCIP spending and steps they are taking to

ensure the sufficiency of PCIP funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...