HHS Predicted Much Employer-Backed Health Coverage Wouldn't Survive Obamacare, Either

Back in 2010, when the Department of Health and Human Services projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individual customers will not be able to keep their existing health coverage because of the tight requirements for grandfathering policies, HHS made similar projections for health coverage offered by employers. As it turns out, many of those comfortably ensconced in jobs at large and small firms were projected to lose their health plans, too. Courtesy of the Wayback Machine, we can review that now-offline document. At that time, HHS estimated that 34 to 64 percent of large employer (100 or more workers) plans would lose grandfathered status by 2013, and that 49 to 80 percent of small employer (under 100 workers) plans would lose grandfathered status by 2013.

You can click the image below for a larger and more readable version, but there are the projections from the HHS document.

Projection of employer plans remaining grandfatheredDepartment of Health and Human Services

The reason for the high projections for the loss of grandfathered status are no surprise, The regulations for retaining that status are tight—so tight they raised repeated complaints.

Again, from the HHS document:

Compared to their polices in effect on March 23, 2010, grandfathered plans:

  • Cannot Significantly Cut or Reduce Benefits.  For example, if a plan decides to no longer cover care for people with diabetes, cystic fibrosis or HIV/AIDS.
  • Cannot Raise Co-Insurance Charges.  Typically, co-insurance requires a patient to pay a fixed percentage of a charge (for example, 20% of a hospital bill).  Grandfathered plans cannot increase this percentage.
  • Cannot Significantly Raise Co-Payment Charges.  Frequently, plans require patients to pay a fixed-dollar amount for doctor’s office visits and other services. Compared with the copayments in effect on March 23, 2010, grandfathered plans will be able to increase those co-pays by no more than the greater of $5 (adjusted annually for medical inflation) or a percentage equal to medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.  For example, if a plan raises its copayment from $30 to $50 over the next 2 years, it will lose its grandfathered status.
  • Cannot Significantly Raise Deductibles.  Many plans require patients to pay the first bills they receive each year (for example, the first $500, $1,000, or $1,500 a year). Compared with the deductible required as of March 23, 2010, grandfathered plans can only increase these deductibles by a percentage equal to medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.  In recent years, medical costs have risen an average of 4-to-5% so this formula would allow deductibles to go up, for example, by 19-20% between 2010 and 2011, or by 23-25% between 2010 and 2012.  For a family with a $1,000 annual deductible, this would mean if they had a hike of $190 or $200 from 2010 to 2011, their plan could then increase the deductible again by another $50 the following year. 
  • Cannot Significantly Lower Employer Contributions.  Many employers pay a portion of their employees’ premium for insurance and this is usually deducted from their paychecks. Grandfathered plans cannot decrease the percent of premiums the employer pays by more than 5 percentage points (for example, decrease their own share and increase the workers’ share of premium from 15% to 25%).
  • Cannot Add or Tighten an Annual Limit on What the Insurer Pays.  Some insurers cap the amount that they will pay for covered services each year.  If they want to retain their status as grandfathered plans, plans cannot tighten any annual dollar limit in place as of March 23, 2010.  Moreover, plans that do not have an annual dollar limit cannot add a new one unless they are replacing a lifetime dollar limit with an annual dollar limit that is at least as high as the lifetime limit (which is more protective of high-cost enrollees). 
  • Cannot Change Insurance Companies.  If an employer decides to buy insurance for its workers from a different insurance company, this new insurer will not be considered a grandfathered plan.  This does not apply when employers that provide their own insurance to their workers switch plan administrators or to collective bargaining agreements.

That's a lot of hoops through which to jump, and many health plans were never expected to make it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Alice Bowie||

    As much as i HATE the ACA, the policies in place are all to stop insurance companies from weasalling out of paying claims.

    I think that the ACA should had been an expansion of Medicare.
    I liked the idea that 50 and over would be able to apply, pay, and receive medicare. They make up the LION SHARE of the people requiring health (an expensive health).

    Something needs to be done for emergencies. Why is the ER $10,000 per visit?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think a lot of people appreciate that the real purpose of ObamaCare was to save Medicare and Medicaid from reform.

    If insurance premiums are high because private pay patients are getting gouged to cover all the losses on Medicare patients, then the last thing you want to do is expand Medicare. Medicare is already expanding due to demographics--damn baby boomers destroy everything they touch.

    That's one of the many reasons why expanding Medicaid with ObamaCare was such a bad idea. If inner city hospitals and ERs are closing because they can't gouge the privately insured in poor, inner city neighborhoods (because there are so few privately insured to gouge there), then the solution is NOT to expand Medicaid.

    "From 1990 to 2009, the number of hospital emergency departments in non-rural areas in the USA declined by 27%, according to a study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association."

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com.....g-US_n.htm

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't think a lot of people appreciate that the real purpose of ObamaCare was to save Medicare and Medicaid from reform.

    Expand government and advance the ball in the direction of single payer the holy grail of american socialist for the last 100 years.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    As much as i HATE the ACA, the policies in place are all to stop insurance companies from weasalling out of paying claims.

    Bullshit. They are in place to make it impossible to continue offering reasonable coverage and replace it with ridiculous/ludicrous coverage.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think it's true that in ObamaWorld, the way to stop insurers from making it more expensive to get the same coverage is to make a regulation against it.

    ...in ObamaWorld, insurers reacting by doing things like effectively exiting the market and selling fewer policies is unpossible.

  • Tonio||

    AA, AB is not subject to rational suasion. AB doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of libertarianism.

  • LynchPin1477||

    As much as i HATE the ACA, the policies in place are all to stop insurance companies from weasalling out of paying claims.

    Why not do this by tightening anti-fraud laws where needed, but allowing private individuals to set the terms of their own contracts?

  • Drake||

    This is the objective of our 50+ state and territorial Departments of Insurance.

    I once disputed a claim with my insurance provider (at the time I worked for an insurance company). I quoted the relevant regulation book and verse, and offered to dial up the DOI and verify their rules. A new voice immediately came on the phone assuring me that would not be necessary and the claim would be paid with no further delay.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    I doubt you hate anything about the ACA because your initial statement is basically that private corporations are stealing from the public and that only government can stop this from happening. I agree that the ER is too expensive however, when tort reform (which is one reason for the high prices among many) was brought into the mix as to lowering healthcare costs the Petty Dictator rejected it immediately. Can't piss of those lawyers that donate all that DNC cash now can you?

  • Alice Bowie||

    If I, a Doctor, that pays $150k per year for Malpractice insurance no longer have to pay it due to tort reform, do you think I will lower my price?

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie|10.30.13 @ 10:44AM|#
    "If I, a Doctor, that pays $150k per year for Malpractice insurance no longer have to pay it due to tort reform, do you think I will lower my price?"

    You stupid shit! You'd do it in a New York minute if your competition across the hall did it!

  • Alice Bowie||

    I think we talked about this sevo yesterday. Today's doctors don't compete via pricing.

    In a free market health provider system, yes, you are correct.

    We are far from this.
    Patients look at a website or booklet to see what doctor is in the plan. They don't even know how much the doctor charges.

  • fish||

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.

    /O'Rourke

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie|10.30.13 @ 10:54AM|#
    ..."Today's doctors don't compete via pricing."

    So the insurance company 'trying to weasel out of paying claims' won't go to the cheaper doctor?
    How many sides does your mouth have?

  • wareagle||

    Alice,
    how does expanding govt's role in health care alleviate the problems that are largely caused by govt's role to begin with? And your question about tort reform, malpractice rates, and a doctor's charges ignores the obvious - tort reform would likely mean fewer unnecessary tests run on you, which by definition, would reduce your cost.

  • robc||


    Today's doctors don't compete via pricing.

    Tell that to the doctors in OK who are posting their prices and have a booming business because of it.

  • OneOut||

    If you, as a Doctor didn't match your competitors price in a "freer" market place and went broke, you could always go to work for the OFA posting rosy word pictures about Obamacare on the internet.

  • OneOut||

    If the patient has "skin in the game" they do.

    I do.

    http://www.surgerycenterok.com/

  • Plopper||

    I've heard of much larger bills than that, but I agree torts are only a small part of the issue.

    The ER is $10,000 per visit because

    #1 the government makes it very hard for any amount of real competition to exist in either the insurance or health care industries.

    #2 Everything is paid by third parties. I don't think the insurance companies have the incentive to care about hospitals overcharging with the current regulatory landscape. Mind you, the third party paying for everything in itself isn't the issue, it's that combined with the totally broken market thanks to interference from the government for well over a century.

    http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

  • GregMax||

    And ERs are the last resort of non-insured people. They are guaranteed service.

  • ||

    ER is $10,000 per visit?

    Not where I live.

    The basic ER charge is $500. Then depending on what procedures are performed, maybe more. A CAT scan or a sonogram will tack on a couple hundred dollars. An X-ray maybe $100.

    I was on a high-deductible plan for a few years, so I know this. I actually read my bills.

  • blcartwright||

    I'm in Pa, and have had a couple time sensitive visits to the ER. One of the cats bit my hand (big puncture wound), my daughter closed the van door on my forearm (is it broken?), and a severe ankle sprain. I believe they were all in the $200 or $300 range to have me in the exam room for a half hour or so and run some basic tests. (although I really do think I had some bad ligament damage in the ankle, I felt it for a year, but after an x-ray they gave me tylenol and a pair of crutches)

  • Ken Shultz||

    The suggestion that the cost to hospitals is so high--because doctors have to cover their malpractice insurance premiums? that doesn't seem to even fly.

    Doctors bill separately from hospitals, don't they? Why are the costs specific to hospitals so high--to private insurers? How much does that have to do with providers losing money on Medicare and Medicaid patients?

  • wareagle||

    in addition to M&M patients, there are indigents, be they illegal or natives who fall between govt coverage and the ability to get their own. My wife worked in medical billing for a long time and it is own brand of ugly sausage-making. Lots of villains in the system.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are villains in the system, but I'm not sure I'd villainize people who are too poor to pay and come into the ER with a life threatening condition.

    It's just that the biggest villains never seem to get any press. And Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest villains out there.

    One of the "villains" that gets a lot of press is the profit motive. Never mind that the profit motive is instrumental in keeping costs down, some 70% of the hospitals out there non-profit! But, no, let's blame "corporations", whoever they are, for chasing profits.

  • wareagle||

    for some reason, people associated "non profit" with non revenue. Ever seen the payroll at a hospital? Non-profit just means what normal folks consider profits go into expanding the physical plant, getting new equipment, hiring new people, maybe giving bonuses, etc. instead of going to shareholders.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Indeed a "not profit" status doesn't mean the entity doesn't actually make a profit.

    All it means is that it doesn't have to pay federal corporate taxes on it's profit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, but profits going to shareholders is what drives costs down.

    The difference between revenue and cost is profit.

    When the prices you charge are fixed, the way to make more profit is to slash costs. Companies generally prefer cutting costs because your competitors won't necessarily raise their prices just because you do.

    Therefore, the profit motive drives cost cutting. If you're a provider that's owned and operated by a bunch of doctors, doctors who are billing the hospital for various things, you actually want the hospital to spend more money. The incentives are all twisted...especially if there are none of those profits going to the owners of that hospital.

    But if you ask Tony or any other random progressive, they'll tell you that one of the reasons healthcare costs so much is because of the profit motive.

    ...and, on top of all the reasons why their take gets it completely backwards, they'll also completely ignore the fact that some 70% of the hospitals in this country are non-profit--so how the hell can profit seeking be the problem?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The incentives are all twisted...especially if there are none of those profits going to the owners of that hospital."

    That hospital may be making a profit, but slashing costs will not put more money in the owners' pockets like it does in a for-profit company.

    Because company owners want profits--the kind you can deposit in your personal checking account--if healthcare in this country were run completely by profit-seeking companies, the cost of healthcare would go down...because of profit-seeking!

    That's the point.

  • OneOut||

    And to add , Profits are what drive innovation towards life saving and life extending, procedures and drugs.

  • DarrenM||

    some 70% of the hospitals out there non-profit!

    I probably misunderstand, but I don't think non-profit means they won't charge as much as a for-profit. It's more a matter of where the money goes.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I think most hospitals are non-profit because most stay open through donations - it is my understanding that most hospitals would not have, under normal circumstances, more revenue than costs (though I'm sure a not insignificant missed source of revenue is due to non-payment and lawsuits).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Perhaps. You might have to in light of competition. The more direct result is that you'll just be less likely to engage in defensive medicine.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie|10.30.13 @ 10:15AM|#
    "As much as i HATE the ACA, the policies in place are all to stop insurance companies from weasalling out of paying claims."

    How does someone as stupid as you manage to turn on a computer? Do you have help?

  • fish||

    The library turns them on when they open....homeless indigents stagger in later and bless us with their wisdom.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, Fish, one of our most beloved and insightful commentators was homeless. JsubD gave us the expression "fuck off, slaver." Rest in peace, JsubD; you are missed.

  • ||

    Alice, I think it is largely a myth that insurers regularly attempted to weasel out of claims.

    These people who had coverage that is being dropped were not complaining about it. They are complaining now, because they had affordable coverage, which was working just fine for them, and now they are being forced to pay significantly more in premiums.

    Your rates are going up, not because of changes in benefits. They are going up because you are being forced to subsidize other people's healthcare. That is ALL. That is the same thing that is happening to millions of other people whose plans are being cancelled. Somebody has to pay for all the people who had pre-existing conditions getting covered, and it happens to be you.

  • OneOut||

    Until recently I had a BCBS plan for $240 a month when I bought it before the ACA was passed.

    They paid $15K for a surgery 90 days after I signed up and paid my first premium.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Something needs to be done for emergencies. Why is the ER $10,000 per visit?

    Because price signals have been removed from healthcare for so long that literally no one knows what an ER visit "should cost".

    We need to get back to consumers paying for services.

  • ||

    The ER isn't $10,000 per visit.

    The SURGERY might be, if that's what you need.
    The ER visit itself is a $500 charge. That's what you pay for waling in the door.

  • Bryan C||

    That's utter nonsense. People had plans. Insurers were paying claims on those plans. These regulations were put in place after the bill passed entirely to kill existing plans and artificially increase participation in the government exchanges. To deny people the possibility of a choice.

  • Harun||

    ER visits are more like $1,000 than $10,000, but one reason they are so high is that the hospitals subsidize Medicare patients with privately insured patients.

    Its like a balloon, where we step on one side of the baloon, and thus "inflate" the other side.

    So, in your plan we would simply take our foot off the balloon and then step on the other side.

    There many other reasons why our healthcare system is expensive, but those too would not be addressed by moving to Medicare for all.

  • burserker||

    you don't hate the ACA, you want more govt regulations

    buy a policy for emergencies (its called castastrophic) if thats your concern

  • OneOut||

    "As much as i HATE the ACA, the policies in place are all to stop insurance companies from weasalling out of paying claims."

    Then why Obamacare ? Why not just pass one simple law stopping them from doing that ?

    Deflection and misdirection doesn't work well on this site.

    Try wnd.com or The Blaze.

    You'll have better luck.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Dear Democrats,

    That big piece of shit you smeared all over yourselves? It looks good on you.

    See you at the midterms!

    Love,

    The Tea Party

    XOXOXO

  • Alice Bowie||

    I doubt tea party will gain momentum after all of this. Regardless of ACA and as Crappy as Obama is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Really? And why is that?

    If we don't expect the American people to react favorably to the only force in politics that actually tried to save them from this monstrosity--even as working Americans are losing their coverage? then what should we expect people to react favorably to?

    I mean, how are the Democrats going to blame Bush or the Republicans for ObamaCare? The Tea Party shut the damn government down to try to stop this! What more could they have done? How should we expect the Democrats to get the stink of ObamaCare off of them?

    Calling it the ACA isn't gonna help.

  • Drake||

    The Tea Party is just people who can do math. The Democrat math mistakes are becoming more and more glaring.

  • GregMax||

    The majority of voters are idiots. It has little to do with reason, if some lib authority tells them the tea party are racist . . . the tea party is racist.
    You can't logicise with people trained out of their critical thinking skills (which they exchange for stuff and the ease of not having to think for themselves.)

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think it will be different now that it's real and we're seeing the consequences.

    It's easy to demonize people for opposing unicorns and angels, when unicorns and angels are still just under consideration.

    Now it's reality's turn. We've seen this sort of thing happen before. The country has turned decidedly capitalist and pragmatic in the past. It's just that we've been sold a bill of goods for the last five years.

    No con lasts forever, and the ObamaCare con is blowing up in everybody's faces right now. We were conned. People will react to that as reality continues to sink in.

  • Tonio||

    Quibble - people have to be trained into critical thinking skills, not the other way around.

  • GregMax||

    Yeah, but I'd argue that most kids before entering education hell have rudimentary critical thinking skills. They're long gone for most by the 10th grade. (And they never get retrained. They just become Democrats.)

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I'm not sure kids are good critical thinkers, but young kids do have two skills used by good critical thinkers and that is curiosity and humility (when they hear new things, they don't automatically think it's wrong).

    Both of which are basically destroyed in public education, as the truly humble are ignored, and anyone curious will read nonapproved ideas or work on nonapproved projects - which will be punished.

  • OneOut||

    I believe that is more true of the "vunnables" ( per Shelia Jackson Lee), than your average middle class working tax paying voter, even if they are a Democrat.

    The vunnables are going to get their ACA fro free so they don't care.

    The die hard Liberals come closer to fitting your description though.

    We shall see though. I only hope you are not right.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    pay no attention to the 2010 midterms and what happened over just the voting on this legislation. the implementation midterms will go much better even though committed leftists like Alice Bowie are admitting this sandwich tastes like shit.

  • sarcasmic||

    The ACA is settled law! Just like The Alien and Sedition Acts, The Fugitive Slave Act, and Prohibition! Settled law! What part of settled law do you not understand!

  • John||

    Look America, we got rid of your old health insurance policies and gave you new and improved ones. What the hell kind of unpatriotic ingrates are you not to love us for it?

    That is really going to be the talking point. Forget blaming the insurance companies for this. Doing that would require them understanding that the new Obama policies are not wonderful.

  • RG||

    Yep, thats why the number affected matters. Right now, I'm hearing 2 million. They'll have no problem ignoring the complaints from them.

    The real test will be when the employer mandate kicks in.

  • John||

    That is not the real number. What no one is talking about is the number of people who have employer provided plans that are subject to the "Cadillac Health Plan" tax. That is in the millions as well. And pretty much every employer is dropping the plans subject to that tax and replacing it with something much worse. The Act ensures that no one can have decent health insurance. Everyone must have the overpriced shitty insurance the party wants them to have.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Everyone must have the overpriced shitty insurance the party wants them to have.

    We must achieve equality, and if we cannot equalize up, then I guess we just have to equalize down.

  • sarcasmic||

    We must achieve equality, and if we cannot equalize up, then I guess we just have to equalize down.

    Equality always heads towards the lowest common denominator.

  • Sudden||

    I nominate this be made a new Iron Law

  • kinnath||

    You just described my situation.

  • Harun||

    The Democrats also forget that when you don't do distribution indirectly through the tax system, you allow companies to explain why they are cancelling policies, etc.

    Instead of some amorphous glob of taxes going up, you will have companies telling their employees exactly why they are losing their insurance - due to the ACA. Its even easier when the roll-out has been so horrible as the employee will be understanding.

    Case in point was on 10/28 new rules from the CFPB came out on international wire transfers. My bank is raising the fee for those, reducing hours available for the service, and eliminating Saturday service. They will have to ask me several questions before I am allowed to make my routine international payments and I get a 30 minute regret window. (Not joking.) As you can imagine, fees go up and other banks are removing the service entirely. But I will be "safer" LOL.

    At first, I was suspicious that it was the bank itself being jerks...but I eventually found the little press release from early this year where the CFPB trumpeted all of these "improvements."

  • DarrenM||

    The Democrats also forget that when you don't do distribution indirectly through the tax system, you allow companies to explain why they are cancelling policies, etc.

    I think that's why so many wanted single payer. It's much easier to game and hide the costs.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    No, the real test will be when small businesses (about 75% of the jobs in this country) drop their health insurance plans completely. Then the sweaty masses will discover they have to pay for this themselves. But wait, it gets better, they don't have to buy anything until they get sick!!!

  • LynchPin1477||

    That is really going to be the talking point.

    It already is. So what if "You can keep your plan if you like it" was a lie? You should never have liked that plan to begin with.

  • John||

    This happens every time the socialists try to do anything beyond steal money and hand out cash. They cannot conceive of how anyone could actually act in their own best interests. So they are always completely shocked when people want to keep what they have and hate the party provided goods that are supposed to take their place.

  • RG||

    Let's see if the American people buy it.

  • Sevo||

    "Forget blaming the insurance companies for this. Doing that would require them understanding that the new Obama policies are not wonderful."

    John,
    You see that dumb shit AB up-thread? See what she's doing? She's shifting the blame to the insurance companies and the Rethugs.
    It's only getting worse; Sebellius yesterday blamed the (for profit!) contractors.
    Sorry, so long as there's the smell of free shit in the November breeze, no amount of logic is going to change Dem voting habits.

  • John||

    Sevo,

    You need to understand, this program doesn't give anyone free shit. You think it does because that is what the Democrats have always done. But it doesn't. No one gets any free shit from this. At most they get a voucher for a discount on insurance they most likely don't want at any price or coverage for some procedure they want for free at the price of paying for a bunch of other shit they don't want.

    You just don't get it. There is no free shit brigade for this bill. No one is getting any free shit. I know that is hard to believe. But it is true.

  • sarcasmic||

    Just because the insurance companies say they're dropping plans because of the ACA doesn't make it true! I mean, they're for-profit corporations! All they care about is profits! That's why they are raising their rates! Profits!

  • RG||

    I know you're mocking them, but take a trip through liberal site's comment boards. A scary amount of people truly believe that profits are evil.

    I've made the mistake of trying to point out that other essential items, such as food, shelter, and clothing are all provided by for profit companies. It never sinks in, my guess is because they would like to eliminate profits in those industries as well.

  • sarcasmic||

    Profits are bad unless you have the correct politics. Then they're excusable. Warren Buffet has the correct politics, so he may keep his profits. The Koch brothers do not, so their profits are what Tony calls "ill-gotten gains."

    It's not what a person does that matters. It's who they are.

  • John||

    They can't say that sarcasmic. Saying that would require them admitting that the wonderful new plans that Obamacare mandates are bad. They are not going to do that.

    The talking point is this. If people are losing their health insurance, it was bad insurance and soon they will get better insurance through the exchanges. If your pan is changing, that is because it was a bad plan and Obamacare is making it better.

    They believe in this program. They think they made insurance better by changing everyone's policy to be what they think is best. They are central planners.

    If you think they are going to even admit this is bad, much less claim that these policies are the result of greedy insurance companies, you don't understand how they think and you don't understand how Obamacare actually works and was intended to work.

  • sarcasmic||

    Saying that would require them admitting that the wonderful new plans that Obamacare mandates are bad.

    Not true! Their new plans are better! And they are only better because of the ACA! Without it the for-profit insurance companies would still be selling useless plans for a profit! Now they must sell Obama approved plans! But they're only expensive because of profit! That's why we need single payer! Government is more efficient because it doesn't waste money on profits to rich people! Single payer now!

  • John||

    You are right sarcasmic, forcing everyone into expensive plans they don't want is going to cause everyone to hate the insurance companies and love the progs even more. They won't say "I want my old plan back. No they will say "I love the progs for forcing me to buy all these things I don't want or need I just hate the insurance companies for charging me for it".

    It is just so fucking tiresome. People are not going to blame the insurance companies because they don't want the things they are being forced to buy. So the issue is not the price as much as it is what they are buying.

    Maybe they will successfully blame the rise in prices on aliens or the Amish. Anything is possible. But, that seems unlikely, and your fantasy prog talking points that are going to ensure that the progs will gain true ascendance via massive failure of their signature policy seems about as likely.

  • sarcasmic||

    No John, I didn't say they'd love the progs even more. I said they'll believe the politicians who blame the insurance companies.

    Trust you to move to goalposts and attack a straw man.

    You're turning into Tulpa.

  • RG||

    John, as you have already admitted, they successfully convinced the public that our health care/insurance system is subpar and needed to be rescued by the government.

    The guy was elected twice and liberals have fought tooth and nail to defend the law. On top of that, during the disasterous exchange site roll out, they convinced the public that the shut down was all the GOP's fault.

    I think you are severely overestimating a large portion of the American public.

  • John||

    John, as you have already admitted, they successfully convinced the public that our health care/insurance system is subpar and needed to be rescued by the government.

    No they didn't. They lied and convinced people that they were going to help "the poor" and "the uninsured" but everyone else was going to pay for it. They never convinced people that their health insurance was bad. They lied and told them not to worry they would "keep their plan if they like it". And now that that is turning out to be a lie there is going to be hell to pay.

    And if you don't see that, you are as dumb as you pretend the American public to be.

  • sarcasmic||

    And if you don't see that, you are as dumb as you pretend the American public to be.

    The same American public who sent Obama to the White House twice, and despite Congress' dismal approval rating sends incumbents back 90% of the time?

    You're telling me they're suddenly going to wise up?

  • OneOut||

    There are already numerous accounts of democrats saying things like, " I liked Obamacare until I found out I was going to have to personally pay for it".

    Let's remember that Liberals desire to redistribute wealth is always someone else's wealth, not their own.

    There will undoubtedly de some die hard liberals who publicly claim that they like the ACA and don't mind paying extra. But when classes are out those same little JuCo professors are going to be pissed when they get cut back to 29 hours a week AND have to buy their own insurance on the website. ( if it ever works)

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Count me among those who think you've called this one wrong, John. I hope you're right, but I'm not all that confident. When people have to write that check, it isn't going to say progressives on the "Pay to the Order of" line. It's going to be their insurance company. When people get that cancellation notice, it isn't going to be Barack Obama's or Katherine Sebelius's letterhead that it comes on. Yes, a relatively modest portion of the population can see beyond the immediate and recognize the role of policy in consequences. But, again, that's relatively modest portion.

  • John||

    Anbd of course the insurance companies are going to go along with this. They will just quietly sit back and let the Progs blame them and never tell the truth. Nope. And even if they do, everyone will believe anything a Prog says. In fact, the fact that this is playing out exactly opposite to what the Progs and Obama told them it would, is going to make people believe the progs even more because nothing builds credibility like failure.

    That is really what you argue on here EVERY FUCKING DAY. Really?

  • sarcasmic||

    They're going to believe the politicians because the alternative is to lose faith in government.

  • RG||

    And losing faith in gov't means accepting that you may actually have to be responsible for your own life.

    Which is a bridge too far for a lot of people.

  • Bryan C||

    "Anbd of course the insurance companies are going to go along with this. They will just quietly sit back and let the Progs blame them and never tell the truth."

    That's exactly what's happening now. The insurance companies are cowering under the threat of government retaliation. They won't even speak up for themselves.

    And, remember, the insurance companies have until tomorrow to withdraw from the federal exchange. Will any of them exercise that option?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "And even if they do, everyone will believe anything a Prog says."

    Compared to the insurance company that just dropped their coverage or jacked up their premiums? Yeah, they probably will. It was supposed to free shit! Why aren't those insurance companies giving us free shit like they're supposed to?!

  • LynchPin1477||

    Their hatred of profits really is remarkable. Slightly OT example, but listening to VPR yesterday, they had someone saying that people need to treat medical screening by for-profit companies with skepticism. The emphasis was on for-profit, not on the value of healthy skepticism in all things.

    The same guy claimed that if the screenings were so wonderful, they wouldn't have to advertise them. Yes, that was an actual statement. I suppose all the advertising to get people to sign for Obamacare is just proof of how awful it is, right?

  • Harun||

    Actually its semi-logical to imagine that by removing profits, you can lower costs. If I am a monopoly, and someone starts to compete with me forcing me to lower my prices, costs do go down for the consumers and so did profits.

    However, when you use a new monopoly called government, you may not achieve such cost savings, for all manner of reasons.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Actually its semi-logical to imagine that by removing profits, you can lower costs.

    Maybe semi-logical, but completely shallow as in believing this you must also believe that companies in a forced non-profit world would have the same behavior and tendencies that they now have in the (mostly) non-forced for-profit world.

    & even if they don't want to look at the evidence which shows competition lowers costs more than non-profit monopolies, it should be obvious to even casual observers that once you change the rules of the game, the players will adjust their behavior and therefore it's not as easy as saying, remove 20% profit and we can do 20% more work (or better or whatever).

  • RG||

    I'm with you. Too many voters suffer from Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to big gov't. They'll willingly accept any talking point or lie, no matter how painful.

  • John||

    Maybe they do. But you guys don't understand liberals and you don't understand this plan and how it was supposed to work. They are not going to blame the insurance companies. In the supporters of this bill's mind, there is nothing to blame the insurance companies for. They think these new plans are great and they did America this huge favor by forcing them to buy them. Why would they let the insurance companies get credit for creating these great new benefits and replacing all of these old low coverage health plans with new better coverage plans?

    You guys are just astoundingly thick headed. Get it through your skull. The drafters and supporters of this plan have no fucking idea why anyone would be unhappy at seeing their health insurance plan replaced by the the plans they mandated. So they are going to go on claiming that this thing is fabulous and America is either too stupid or too ungrateful to understand how great it is.

  • wareagle||

    so you're going to come here and basically do what the Sally Kohn wing is doing, the only difference being that we're stupid in another direction. If you don't believe the left sees insurance carriers as the A#1 villain, you are not paying attention.

    Blaming the carriers is the heartbeat of the talking point that all O-care did was eliminate the shitty plans those evil companies offered their gullible consumers. The most strident lefties think this plan is a sop to insurance.

  • RG||

    And my point is, many Americans will fall for it and accept the changes without a peep.

    The media is already aiding and abetting this, by making the claim that the previous plans were subpar. Full stop. Argument via assertion.

  • John||

    And my point is, many Americans will fall for it and accept the changes without a peep.

    If you honestly believe that, then you really have chosen the wrong ideology. If America is that stupid, then why on earth would you think that they should be free and not have their lives managed by top men?

    I am sorry but I don't think America is that stupid and if I did, I would be a liberal. And more to the point neither you nor I are that fucking smart. We understand what is causing this and so will at least the majority of the country.

    It makes you feel good to think that everyone is stupid and only a you and a few other select Casandras can see the truth. But it is really not true. Everyone may not pay attention the way you do. But most of them can see when their health insurance goes south and understand that it was Obamacare that did it.

    I mean if nothing else the fact that the Dems have been telling them for five years how Obamacare is going to make things better and was coming in October of 2014 kind of helps them out a bit, even though they are not smart like you.

    Get the fuck over yourselves people.

  • RG||

    Yes John, I do believe that a large chunk of the population has completely lost the ability to critically think.

    They've both the administration's lies for 5 straight years now.

  • John||

    Maybe RG.

    Or maybe they are not dorks and have lives and don't pay much attention and thus generally believe what the media puts out right up until something gives them a reason to think otherwise, you know like their health insurance getting canceled.

    I mean Jesus fucking Christ, even the media stories on this say that these plans are changing because of Obamacare. Even if you are lowest information voter who gets their news for the 6 o'clock news and the local paper, you know that Obamacare is calling this. That is what the stories say.

    Show me one news story that puts out you and sarcasmic's fantasy talking points? I haven't seen one. And if you can show me one, I can show you a hundred that say this is the result of Obamacare. So if the media is so powerful, then shouldn't the fact that even the media is admitting this is the result of Obamacare mean that people will too?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm going to repeat my comment from above...

    It will be different now that ObamaCare is real and we're seeing the consequences in the real world.

    It's easy to demonize people for opposing unicorns--when unicorns are still just under consideration. When you suddenly have to depend on unicorns materializing in the real world to save our health insurance, well, when that doesn't happen, we shouldn't expect people to keep believing.

    Now it's reality's turn. We've seen this sort of thing happen before. The country has turned decidedly capitalist and pragmatic in the past. It's just that we've been sold a bill of goods for the last five years.

    No con lasts forever, and the ObamaCare con is blowing up in everybody's faces right now. We were conned.

    And people WILL react to that as reality continues to sink in. For most of us, we know a little something about economics, and the fallout from ObamaCare is no surprise to us. Most people aren't like that. They don't know any more about economics than they do about calculus. ...so the results come as unexpected to them.

    You knew it all along, so you wonder why other people didn't react way back when this was being voted on. But other people didn't know it all along. They had to see the results before they understood. Now that they're seeing the results, there's no reason to think they're going to keep believing in unicorns Obama like they used to.

  • OneOut||

    Also Ken we need to factor in that after Syria and now this,Obama is a lame duck. The pro left media are now turning away from Obama and are already sliding pro Hillary. They know that Obama's rose has wilted and are beginning to differentiate between the past and the future glory of all that is Hillary.

    I saw a headline yesterday that proclaimed that the Clintons are just the breath of HONESTY that the country is yearning for.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not that people are stupid. It's that they've been trained to emote, not think. The emotional reaction to higher insurance premiums is to blame the insurance company. It takes a couple steps of thought to blame the ACA and the Democrats that passed it. I don't believe most people will do that. They'll have their initial reaction against the evil for-profit corporations, then that's it. Then when the politicians say we need single payer, the people will cheer.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It's not that people are stupid. It's that they've been trained to emote, not think."

    It's not that they're stupid; it's that they're ignorant.

    We walk around assuming that other people understand basic economics like we do--but they don't. It's all mysterious to them.

    They don't choose what to believe about ObamaCare based on what they know about economics; they chose what to believe about ObamaCare based on whom they trust.

    If they trust Obama, then they believe him--that's the emotional component. When they lose their insurance, they'll start believing somebody else.

  • John||

    Yeah sarcasmic, they are not stupid, they just can't think and can't do any reasoning that goes beyond gut emotion. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

    And even if they could, has it ever occurred to you that emotions run two ways? If people can emote for the Progs, they can also emote against the progs and get really angry, like after the Progs lied to them and promised they could keep their health insurance only for it to turn out they can't.

    IN the end, your entire position is disgusting and elitist. You sound like the worst prog on here. Your opinion of how everyone, not just fringe progs, but the average person, can't think but emotes totally dehumanizes people. Hell, if they can't think past one level, why not lock them all up?

    Fuck you. Most of those people "emoting" are a lot smarter than you are and do things like fly planes, build things, fix cars and a million other things you will never do. Take your elitism and snobbery and go fuck yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Way to emote, there, John Boy.

  • John||

    I didn't emote. You can only emote love of progs. No one ever emotes against progs.

    I guess it makes you feel better to think you are somehow smarter than everyone. But it really not true sarcasmic. Most people are just as smart or close to as smart or smarter than you. You are not a member of some special elite group of Americans who the only ones smart enough to understand that Obama fucked up everyone's health care.

    It is a tough reality to face. But the rest of the country is in on the secret. You just going to have to find some other reason to think you are special. But when you do, can you do yourself and everyone else a favor and start thinking about politics as something other than a way to play out your little psychodrama or obtain your self worth?

  • RG||

    John, you're now conflating specific knowledge with general intelligence and critical thinking.

    And nobody is arguing to lock people up.

  • sarcasmic||

    John, you're now conflating specific knowledge with general intelligence and critical thinking.

    And nobody is arguing to lock people up.

    Pipe down! He's got the straw man on the ropes! Soon as he finishes him off he's going to grab the goalposts and run!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, empirically, lots of people do outsource their analysis. When the man in the nice suit from the government comes on the television and explains that it was all the insurance companies' fault and besides they didn't really want that crummy old policy anyway, and all the nice people in nice suits on television are shaking their heads in agreement, the public is going to ignore their own senses and reasoning because they've been trained to do it. They've been trained to accept that they aren't as smart as that nice man on the television. So if he says its the insurance company's fault, who are they to argue?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sometimes reality intrudes on central planners fantasies and their opponents defeatism. It happened in the late 70s and it is happening right now with Obamacare.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

  • sarcasmic||

    It happened in the late 70s and it is happening right now with Obamacare.

    I hope you're right, but I doubt it.

  • John||

    I hope you're right, but I doubt it.

    You sound awfully gleeful at the proposition that everyone is stupid and you are smart. You do understand that if VG is right, you will have to face the prospect of people not being quite as dumb as you think they are?

  • sarcasmic||

    Fuck off, John Boy Tulpa.

  • RG||

    If people are so goddamned bright, please explain the existence and popularity of Matty Yglesias, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, EJ Dionne, et al?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The readership for all of those people combined is actually very small for a country of 310 million. Certainly much less than 1% of the population and some portion of that is people like us that read them for comedic value.

    And for a point of comparison, things like ghosts, demons, and aliens sincerely believed in by 10-15% of the population.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If people are so goddamned bright, please explain the existence and popularity of Matty Yglesias, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, EJ Dionne, et al?

    I thought I did a pretty good job of that earlier.

    It's not that they're stupid; it's that they're ignorant. And when they're faced with making decisions about whether to support something they really don't understand, they defer to the people they trust.

    If they happen to trust those people you listed, for whatever reason, then that's who they believe.

    You probably defer to people like that yourself, sometimes, especially at work.

    Anyway, let me turn the question around and put it to you--if people are all so stupid, then why she we be libertarians? Why should we advocate giving them the freedom to make choices for themselves if they're so stupid?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Anyway, let me turn the question around and put it to you--if people are all so stupid, then why she we be libertarians? Why should we advocate giving them the freedom to make choices for themselves if they're so stupid?"

    Typing too fast again...

    If people are so stupid, then why should we be libertarians? Why should we advocate giving people the freedom to make choices for themselves if they're so stupid?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why should we advocate giving people the freedom to make choices for themselves if they're so stupid?

    As stupid as people are, they at least know their own self interest better than someone else. So they are better equipped to made decisions about their own lives than over the lives of other people.

  • John||

    As stupid as people are, they at least know their own self interest better than someone else.

    You don't think that. If you did, you would not be claiming that losing their health insurance is going to cause them to love the people who did it more.

    If they are capable of knowing their self interests better than anyone else, then they won't believe the ridiculous lies you claim they will.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tulpafy!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "As stupid as people are, they at least know their own self interest better than someone else. So they are better equipped to made decisions about their own lives than over the lives of other people."

    I think we've got a problem with judging people for not avoiding things in the future--that we, as libertarians, always knew was coming.

    Well, it's no longer a prediction about the future that we're making. It's really happening! That's a big difference.

    So, when something like ObamaCare comes along and ruins their health insurance--in real life--why don't you think they'll vote in their own best interests?

    It's like the difference between telling people that signing Kyoto is going to make gasoline prices spike (which they don't react to), and that time when gasoline prices spiked becasue all that oil was pouring into the Gulf and all the oil rigs were closing down.

    People react to price signals--as libertarians, we know about that from economics. People don't react to predictions about the future as much as they react to price spikes in the here and now.

    What ObamaCare was up until the last few weeks was a prediction about the future. We may have seen it coming, but most people thought those were just predictions. Now, people are experiencing price signals in real time. So, I think it's reasonable to expect them to react to these ObamaCare price signals--even if they didn't react to the predictions before.

  • RG||

    The economy has been bad for 5 plus years now, and the admin still gets away with blaming Bush and deregulation.

    People at the lowest rungs struggle to afford the basics, and its blamed on the 1%, profits, and lack of government intervention instead of the Fed's inflationary policies.

    People want to believe that TOP MEN can solve their problems.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sure, people seem hard wired to want someone or something else to take care of them and it takes reality and experience to get people to realize that they can take better care of themselves. Freedom is scare for a lot of people.

    And yet, when daddy government turns into an abusive alcoholic, as it always does, most people will want to get the fuck out of the house.

    And Obamacare is this generation reaching that point.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And why wouldn't that be a relief?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "If America is that stupid, then why on earth would you think that they should be free and not have their lives managed by top men?"

    Well, for starters, I don't think I'm that stupid and need to have my life managed. Secondly, I'm nowhere near convinced that the TOP MEN are any less stupid.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I not only know how liberals think, but I hear them speak every day. I'm surrounded by them. They are blaming insurance companies and Republicans.

  • sarcasmic||

    They are blaming insurance companies and Republicans.

    NO THEY'RE NOT! TULPA, ER, I MEAN JOHN SAID SO! ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE YOUR EYES OR TULPA, I MEAN JOHN? BECAUSE TULPA, I MEAN JOHN IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE AN ELITIST!

  • John||

    Not everyone is a liberal you half wit.

    Jesus Christ sarcasmic. You are right. You really are smarter and more special than everyone else. There, you feel better?

  • John||

    I not only know how liberals think, but I hear them speak every day. I'm surrounded by them. They are blaming insurance companies and Republicans.

    I know a few of them too. And that is not what the ones I know are saying. And beyond that, only about a third of the country are liberals. So they are not the ones that matter.

  • DarrenM||

    The drafters and supporters of this plan have no fucking idea why anyone would be unhappy at seeing their health insurance plan replaced by the the plans they mandated.

    This is probably true for many of them. However, there are many that know very well plans will get worse. In these cases, I think the immediate goal was to simply increase government control over health care. After this, implementing what they do indeed think are superior solutions becomes easier. They understand they will have to spin things to place any blame on insurance companies or anyone else that's handy, which is ok because in the long run they will get the credit for an improved health care system. Yes, I know it's hard to imagine politicians thinking 'in the long run', but I think some do.

  • OneOut||

    I don't think they plan past their next election.

  • Tim||

    Who could have foreseen this?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But those people were/are UNDERINSURED. You're just muddying the waters. The Obamacare has brought costs down and coverage up; it's a beautiful new day in America.

    Or it would be, without all you boatrockers.

  • John||

    Yup

    http://twitchy.com/2013/10/29/.....-know-sht/

    The only reason people "like" pre-ACA plans is they know shit about them. CBS lady thought she had a $50 copay. Nope mediaite.com/tv/cbs-news-mi…

    Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) October 29, 2013

    Yesterday, Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher sent out a similar message in response to a CBS News report on Dianne Barrette, a 56-year-old woman who claimed her plan was increasing from $54 a month to $591 a month. An increase of more than 10 times certainly seems drastic, but as Christopher notes, Barrette’s $54 policy “barely qualifies as insurance.” In fact, it’s “junk insurance,” writes Christopher, and “Dianne Barrette has no idea what her plan covers.”

    “It’s entirely possible that now-healthy Dianne is ‘happy’ with this plan, but the whole idea behind the Affordable Care Act is that the rest of us are not happy having to pick up the tab if Dianne gets a disease, has an accident, or otherwise needs to go to the hospital,” writes Christopher. Odd: we thought the whole idea was to insure the uninsured, while allowing the insured to keep their plans and doctors.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It’s entirely possible that now-healthy Dianne is ‘happy’ with this plan, but the whole idea behind the Affordable Care Act is that the rest of us are not happy having to pick up the tab if Dianne gets a disease, has an accident, or otherwise needs to go to the hospital,” writes Christopher."

    Notice how the Democrats are trying to play both sides of the fence.

    Out of one side of their mouths, they're saying that we're all obligated to pay for other people's health insurance--because healthcare is a right.

    Out of the other side of their mouths, they're demonizing people who can't afford to buy insurance.

    No wonder Tony thinks he's normal!

  • John||

    This is why socialist stay in power only if they just pass out checks or rule by the barrel of the gun. Eventually, the people they claim to be helping end up being demonized and attacked because the people either don't want the "help" socialists are providing or refuse to act in the ways socialists expect them too. When that happens either the socialists pick up a gun and take over or they wind up totally unpopular and completely out of power and despised.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The other thing is that it's all been happening in Obama Fantasyland until now. Now reality gets its say.

    They always seem to act like the laws of economics were something that Ronald Reagan just made up--and should be opposed for that reason!

    Eventually, reality asserts itself, and the whole Fantasyland scenario is exposed as a pipe dream.

    Obama's been pushing his Fantasyland dream for more than five years now. Some people really started to believe it. Did you know that every time somebody says "I don't believe in ObamaCare", five unicorns die"?

  • John||

    Exactly. The "but the free shit brigade" line of reasoning on here doesn't get it. This is not a free shit policy. This is a "we took your old stuff and gave you something better" policy. And that is not the same thing.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    Free shit is WalMart with an EBT glitch. An 80% subsidy for an overpriced 60/40 plan with a $6000 deductible is not free shit. It's a monthly bill for people living paycheck to paycheck. And the Free Shit Army knows the difference.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

    God I wish more people on this board would figure that fact out.

  • Swiss Servator, Bow to Bern!||

    The Free Shit Army - a radical offshoot of the KISS Army?!

  • OneOut||

    And, at this point, we are talking about individuals who had been paying for their own insurance. That category of people are going to lean towards being smart enough to know who and what caused the difference.

  • R C Dean||

    the whole idea behind the Affordable Care Act is that the rest of us are not happy having to pick up the tab

    The funny thing is, the whole idea behind the ACA is to force the rest of us to pick up the tab.

    He's right about one thing, though: we're not happy about it.

  • ||

    Notice how they don't actually bother to find out what her plan covered. They just ASSUME that it was inadequate without bothering to find out.

    We have no idea if it was a high-deductible plan or a mini-med plan or what.

  • Juice||

    She also told Wemple that she makes around $30,000 a year, which would put her Obamacare premium at about $209/mo. That’s for a plan that is literally infinitely better than what she had.

    She only makes $30k a year so she can totally afford to shell out $2508 a year on this one bill alone.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    and with $2508 cash, she could purchase about $7500 in heath care because the doctor doesn't have to pay someone to try to collect a partial payment months down the road.

    not to mention that $2508 represents $3000-$4000 of her earnings.

  • OneOut||

    plus large deductibles and only 80% to 85% coverage.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    You passed it, guess what's in it?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well I'm keeping my employer plan next year, but my cost is going up 39% which includes a new fee accessed under AFA on employer sponsered health care plans. So thanks for that.

  • kinnath||

    We lost the plans that we were happy with. They were replaced by high-deductible plans that meet the minimum requirements of ACA and avoid the impending cadillac tax.

    The only good news is that the union workers got really fucked. They had much better plans than the professional staff, and now we all have the same crappy plan.

  • Sevo||

    "The only good news is that the union workers got really fucked."
    I hope someone hangs a sign in the lunch-room with "neener, neener, neener!" on it.

  • kinnath||

    But the truly fucked are the union retirees. They're are basically losing the private insurance formerly offered by the company.

  • John||

    They fucked everyone with this deal. And they are not going to get away with it. They have actually managed to fuck up badly enough they can't lie their way out of it. They did it in the teens and again in the 70s. Both times they had to go and hide and come back under a new name years or decades later pretending they were something new and totally different from the people who fucked things up before.

  • John||

    And less not forget, the HHS regulations state that as soon as your health plan "significantly changes" it is considered a new plan and thus subject to all of the mandates. It is not you get a new plan as in change jobs. It is whenever the company or the employer make any changes.

    Understand the mandates are a money machine for the insurance companies. It allows them to force their customers to buy coverage they will never use. So pretty much every company will be making changes to their existing policies so they can be "forced" to comply with the mandates. Pretty much every person in America will see their health insurance get more expensive and worse as a result of this. And even the ones who "benefit" in some way will still be getting screwed. Even if you are one of the few people who actually want one of the things now mandated to be covered, say mammograms, you are unlikely to want all of them. Yeah, you are getting your free mammograms covered now. But you will be paying for about a dozen other things you don't want.

    This is what happens when morons write big policies. All they saw was "but the womenz need mammograms" or "but what about colonoscopies?" and though "we will just cover it all" not realizing that in doing so they were screwing everyone, including the people they honestly believed they were helping.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep,

    The thing that no one is addressing is that the insurance companies were co-conspirators in this disaster.

    It's literally a fascist policy.

  • Harun||

    Just wait until the first insurer bail-out happens.

  • LynchPin1477||

    but the whole idea behind the Affordable Care Act is that the rest of us are not happy having to pick up the tab if Dianne gets a disease, has an accident, or otherwise needs to go to the hospital

    Does not compute. The whole point of the individual mandate is to force precisely this situation onto even more people.

    There has to be a word for someone who creates a problem, complains about it, and then only proposes "solutions" that keep the original problem in place and add new ones.

  • John||

    It is all untrue anyway. No one is going to pay for this women getting sick. She bought the coverage that covers the things she needs and can't afford. What is happening here is that she is now being forced to pay for things she doesn't want or need.

    It is hard to tell if this guy's statement is the result of his ignorance or mendacity. But what he is saying is effectively the following

    If Diane ever has that accident or sickness and needs that prostate exam, the rest of us are not going to be happy to pick up the tab.

  • OneOut||

    Liberals ?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the rest of us are not happy having to pick up the tab if Dianne gets a disease, has an accident, or otherwise needs to go to the hospital,”

    What? Dianne is apparently not the sort of fluttery hypochondriac who rushes off to the doctor every time the wind blows, so what are these "unspecified other" categories of emergency health care?

    I finally broke down and signed up for health insurance a couple of years ago after being uninsured and paying out of pocket for decades, and those premiums have exceeded my actual health care expenses in any calendar year of my life (possibly my lifetime health care expenses in total). Now, admittedly, paying that premium can be considered similar to buying a call option on care in the event of some disaster, but I am paying money into thin air, since there is no accrued long term asset there. Those premiums are gone; am I supposed to "hope" I get sick, so as to get my money back? I'd rather be paying into an annuity which I can either cash out if I get sick, or leave to somebody when I croak.

  • John||

    Brooks,

    You don't exist in liberal land. You can't exist. In the reality based community, health insurance is something that everyone rationally wants and would have if they only had the money. No one would ever have the money and decide that buying health insurance was a bad deal. That can't happen.

    So Brooks I am sorry. Either you don't exist or you are just too stupid to know what is best for you. Clearly, you need a good Prog to come and show you the error of your ways and make you buy some Obama health insurance.

  • Zeb||

    I'd bet that if I had all of the money that my employers have paid to insurance companies on my behalf over the years, I'd be able to pay for just about any medical thing that came up.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Eventually, reality asserts itself, and the whole Fantasyland scenario is exposed as a pipe dream.

    They are going to blame the insurance companies for responding to the incentives they (the democrat/progressive Health Care Wizards) put in place. The insurance companies were invited into the back room to write major parts of the law, but the Wizards established the framework. Multiple somebodies on the insurance side sure as fuck knew what the criteria for a grandfatherable plan were, and acted accordingly.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Obamacare is a government-private partnership - stop acting like the insurance companies are victims - they'r not, they're perpetrators and beneficiaries.

  • Harun||

    Some insurers are victims. Those that ended up being forced to leave the industry, for example. Even those who participate, but really under duress that becomes "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

    But many are not victims and will gleefully exploit the system all the while funding politic ans to keep it going.

  • creech||

    There are many leftwing venture capitalists and bankers out there. So, have they now partnered with "greedy insurers" to set up a chain of emergency rooms that can charge "the real cost" [which we are "reliably" told is certainly much less than is being charged by hospitals today]and still make a reasonable return on their investment? No? Then why are we subject to continual lectures from the likes of Ms. Bowie about what outrageous prices are charged for services? Greed is good for causing prices to fall in a society where competition is encouraged. Unfortunately, government rigs the competition in the U.S., making prices higher than they would otherwise be.

  • DarrenM||

    Unfortunately, government rigs the competition in the U.S., making prices higher than they would otherwise be.

    If multiple companies complete over price without interference, the price goes down in general. If you have one company, the price is not coming down. If you have government creating regulations supporting monopolistic practices and enforcing prices with input mainly from the companies that will be affected (and who give large campaign donations), who is dumb enough to thing prices are doing anything but go up (or the quality of the product go down)? (That's a rhetorical question.)

  • Alice Bowie||

    Libertarian friends.

    Should we get rid of the requirement that people need to be medically treated regardless of money? As you say, you can't get food, housing, water without money.

    Would this be the best for our civilized society?

    This way, you can have a complete free market with zero intervention from the government. The government will not force any provider to treat someone. And, the provider can charge whatever works.

    Is this the libertarian desire?

  • kinnath||

    Should we get rid of the requirement that people need to be medically treated regardless of money?

    Yes

    Would this be the best for our civilized society?

    Yes

  • Alice Bowie||

    What if you lacked sufficent money to have chemo for your child, for example?

    Should we treat that as "it's not my problem"?

  • robc||

    Thats why most hospitals (historically) had a religious name on them.

  • kinnath||

    yup

  • kinnath||

    my child, my problem -- your child, your problem.

    touches on one of my other hot buttons -- don't make babies you can't care for.

  • GregMax||

    The child dies or someone else chooses to pay for it. Or because society doesn't subsidize health care, the providers have to lower their charges to the appropriate income level.
    People die. I will die. There's way too many people sucking off the economy as it is.
    Life is rough. Propping up the lifetime of every person REQUIRES an economic system that supports an expanding population. It's called natural selection.

  • Jordan||

    There are a lot of children who receive free chemo every year in the U.S. And by free, I don't mean paid for by taxpayers or forced at the barrel of a gun.

  • GregMax||

    Which would you prefer - 1000 children dying per year or none dying per year for 10 years followed by 100,000 a year after that?

  • Sudden||

    What sort of discount rate are we applying to the NPV analysis?

  • GregMax||

    I'm assuming there's no change in the relative value of a child over time . . . to the extent you could value a child in a way we'd all agree on . . . which is kinda the point "kinnath" makes.

  • Tonio||

    False choice, Alice.

    Private charities do exist. See Shriners Childrens Hospital for an example that works.

  • Harun||

    Imagine if George Soros spent his billions on charity hospitals rather than in wasteful attempts to change the political system!

  • Sudden||

    You realize that ERs don't administer chemo or have any provisions for oncology right?

  • OneOut||

    Like Sebelious said when faced with the opportunity to let a child live with a lung transplant, "Some live, some die".

    Or like Harry Reid said, why should I worry about a kid with cancer when I have 1,100 people sitting on their ass at a military base. ( paraphrased)

    How should they handled those situations MS. Bowie ?

  • LynchPin1477||

    The way you pay for really expensive stuff when you don't have a lot of money is through real, honest to God insurance. The sort of thing the ACA supporters don't actually count as real insurance at all.

    If people were still really suffering and in need, then in an ideal libertarian world private charity would take care of them.

    We don't live in an ideal libertarian world, so I could live with a limited social safety net, which I prefer be in the form of a refundable tax credit for anyone who works that can be spent on whatever they so choose in a free market. Basically a GMI. It isn't a libertarian idea but it strikes me as the best alternative.

    Any more strawmen you would like knocked down?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Should we get rid of the requirement that people need to be medically treated regardless of money?

    Even this question is slathered in bullshit. Define "treatment".

    If some dumbass cuts his thumb off with his table saw, does treatment consist of stopping the bleeding and sewing up the bloody stump, or (as I suspect you believe) does it require sixteen hours of microsurgery and unlimited therapy to reattach the severed digit and return it to its previous level of function?

    Does cancer treatment consist of palliative care, or an unlimited series of aggressive experimental treatments?

    I (and you) have no "right" to live forever, and especially not at the involuntary expense of others, so kindly fuck off.

  • Alice Bowie||


    I (and you) have no "right" to live forever, and especially not at the involuntary expense of others, so kindly fuck off.

    This is where liberals and libertarians/conservative differ.

    And I think the best remedy here is to split the two people up.

  • kinnath||

    And I think the best remedy here is to split the two people up.

    This is so easy to accomplish. Just dismantle all the government beyond the night watchman (or all of it if that's how you roll).

  • Juice||

    Liberals think people have the right to live forever?

  • Tonio||

    And I think the best remedy here is to split the two people up.

    Alice, what does that even mean? Seriously.

    Everyone else - you can't even argue with this. It's not even wrong. It's just feelings.

  • Harun||

    Exactly. Cost is a consideration in everything, even if we would like it not to be. Canada cut back on old age pensions back in the 90's.

    Do we think they did that because they were uncaring?

    Or is it more likely that while they wanted to keep that payment high, they realized they could not do so due to real money constraints.

  • OneOut||

    But Liberals have been laughing at those in Texas who wanted to secede.

    Have you guys changed you mind now without telling us ?

  • John||

    We have massive charity hospitals, though Obama and the HHS are working hard to see that we don't. No one ever died from lack of care in this country. That was nothing but a lie Progs told to convince people that system was really bad even though they personally were happy with it.

    That requirement didn't exist until 1986. People were not dying for lack of treatment then. What was happening is that if they couldn't pay they were being transported to charity hospitals. All that requirement did was make every hospital in America effectively a charity hospital. And then we were shocked when the price of medical care at those hospitals went up.

  • Alice Bowie||

    May I please get a CITATION on the 1986 thing? I wasn't sure when and who created the mandate that everyone must be treated in emergency situations.

  • Jordan||

    See the EMTALA.

  • Tonio||

    A citation? Srsly? From someone whose best argument is "I think [feel] that things should be a certain way."

    That, everyone is why Alice is a time waster.

  • OneOut||

    see Google.com

  • OneOut||

    It's even free, just like Obamacare!

  • Alice Bowie||

    I think our soceity needs to get a divroce in the USA.

    I believe we are all good people that just share a different opinion on how to handle safety nets. Clearly, some people want them and some people don't. And those that don't, feel like they are being robbed.

    So, why not eliminate the Federal government altogether and just have states rights. Eliminate the US Consititution and all federal laws. Re-distribute the entire US Treasury to the individuals via an even split to their respective states. Let the States have their own constitutions.

    This way, we can see the various experiements in play.

    The country is so torn apart now, WE NEED A DIVORCE.

    I doubt any of you want to be around the likes of me and I don't really want to be around or government by mean-spirited people that can give two shits about others.

    Let's get a divorce. Let's just do separate states.

  • kinnath||

    not far enough

    god forbid I should live in state filled with alices.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Or basically go back to a true federal system, where only things that the Federal government takes care of are the things that it is best suited for? You will get no objection from me there. But for that to work, progressive and conservatives (particularly so-cons) need to be OK with other people living in a way they don't agree with. The reason we have such a bloated Federal government is because progressive and so-cons can't do that.

  • wareagle||

    I don't know that lots of folks are against safety nets, per se, just the form that they have taken. They're no longer safety nets or benefits, they have become entitlements because when you give people shit, they come to expect more shit.

    Man will help his fellow man who is need but he's going to expect the recipient to also help himself at some point. Our safety net enables the opposite of responsible behavior and enlarging it does not change that.

  • DarrenM||

    I don't know that lots of folks are against safety nets, per se, just the form that they have taken.

    The safety net has become a hammock.

  • GregMax||

    As much disdain as I have for liberal ideologues, I would feel bad seeing their utopian fantasies come unglued in a separate-state situation. You'd all be dead in 20 years or over-run by thugs. . . cause Lib-land would have no guns.

  • Juice||

    I believe we are all good people that just share a different opinion on how to handle safety nets. Clearly, some people want them and some people don't.

    Are you suggesting that people only participate in programs if they agree to do so? Are you sure you're not a libertarian?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sounds good to me.

  • Harun||

    You do realize that its your side that refuses to accept Federalism and keeps pushing national solutions.

    Mass. has Romneycare. Texas does not.

    We could let that run for 20 more years to see just how well Romneycare works.

    But that is not acceptable to your side. You MUST have a national system.

  • DarrenM||

    You do realize that its your side that refuses to accept Federalism and keeps pushing national solutions.

    If the righy had control over education, media, and government bureaucracy, I'm not sure it would be much different. However, I think that's where the whole 'checks and balances' thing is supposed to come in.

  • OneOut||

    No even split. Divide it up according to those paid it in. No pay in, no pay out.

    I don't think your team are good people at all.

    Your team has been responsible for the deaths of about 250 million people in the 20th century.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What if you lacked sufficent money to have chemo for your child, for example?

    Life is not fair.
    Get over it.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I understand. And this is where we differ.

    The progressive programs of the 20th century allowed many people in the poorer societies to live...at the cost of others.

  • kinnath||

    The progressive programs of the 20th century doomed millions of people to becoming defacto slaves owned by the government.

    Unfortunately, the government even fucked that up and can't even get cheap stoop labor out if its slaves.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I feel so doomed.

  • kinnath||

    No, I feel doomed, cause your type actually runs the world right now.

  • GregMax||

    Delusion . . .

  • Tonio||

    Yes, Alice, you are doomed. Guarantee you'll be dead within a hundred years. Everyone else here, too. Get over it.

  • wareagle||

    when you subsidize things, you tend to get more of them. When you perpetually subsidize the poor, you rob them of any incentive to do for themselves. And why should they when the state is willing to take from others to sustain those poor.

    I would have a hell of a lot more tolerance for social programs if they came with an expiration date. For instance, how many kids who were on free lunch when starting school ever came off of it?

  • GregMax||

    It isn't just the "poor". Lots of people get redistribution money.

  • OneOut||

    They murdered 250 million people in the 20th century.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The country is so torn apart now, WE NEED A DIVORCE.

    That's like a little poem.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And I think the best remedy here is to split the two people up.

    APARTHEID

  • kinnath||

    *golf clap*

  • Swiss Servator, Bow to Bern!||

    nah, that is worth at least an extended round of opera applause!

  • Alice Bowie||

    The country already has the existing infrastructure to do it.

    We have 50 separate states, all you need to do is make the federal government NIL. Each state can make any rule it wants without inpacting others. Each state can even build walls to keep out undesirables or what have you.

  • Juice||

    Each state can make any rule it wants

    I would hope not.

  • wheelock||

    The country has the existing government to do it too. Its called a constitutional republic.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Each state can even build walls to keep out undesirables or what have you.

    Forcible relocation?

    Quick history quiz: Was the Berlin Wall built to keep people OUT?

    Your little liberal paradise on the Hudson River would implode if all those ruthless moneygrubbers down on Wall Street decided to move to Salt Lake City.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Why would you force re-location?

    I wouldn't force anything. That's the point. Each state can make it's own policies and the Fed just wouldn't exist.

  • Juice||

    The Fed = The Federal Reserve in common parlance.

  • Alice Bowie||

    You can even have states where there is no taxes, police, or established schools.

    Individuals would maintain their own security and educate their own children.

    And, you can have states where the residents are required to pitch in for stuff. And, those residents that find this undesirable can move to states that fit their needs.

  • Juice||

    Individuals would maintain their own security and educate their own children.

    Why? It's much more efficient to pay others to do this.

    And, you can have states where the residents are required to pitch in for stuff. And, those residents that find this undesirable can move to states that fit their needs.

    What if there are no states that fit a person's needs? Would they be able to opt out of the programs they didn't like without having to move their entire life to some other location?

  • Alice Bowie||

    If the state allowed it, why not.

    We are not too far from this you know.

    I can walk around like a cowboy with my gun holster in Arizona.

    I can have the police state of NYC.

    I can spend a lot of money on education via tax dollars like in the North East.

    I can spend no money on education in other states.

  • Juice||

    There is no state where a person can opt out of any program they choose.

    You're talking secession, so I'm just taking it down to the individual level.

    If state secession is ok with you how about individual secession?

  • Alice Bowie||

    If you eliminate the Fed and allow states to make whatever laws they want, you can allow anything.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Voila!

    See the breadth of career opportunities our fastest-growing office has to offer.

    As our second largest office in the Americas, Salt Lake City offers a range of career opportunities for students, recent graduates andexperienced professionals across a number of business functions.

    The Goldman Sachs Salt Lake City office plays a vital role in the success of our worldwide business. In the next several years, we anticipate significant growth and we are looking for talented, intelligent and ambitious people to drive our business forward. You will be challenged every day to continue to achieve results for our clients and for our firm.

    Hmmmm, I'm a go-getter in my mid twenties with a degree in Banking and Finance. Do I want to live in a dirty, smelly, crowded shithole, or would I rather live someplace where I can get completely the fuck out of town in about an hour? Skiing, mountain biking, deer hunting, the possibilities are pretty much unlimited. Are teh MORMONZ any more pettyminded or repressive than the Bloomberg Administration?

    Sign me up.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I am a Skiier.

    Goldman is using Salt Lake for Mid cost.

    All of the banks are transferring jobs to different parts of the country.

    Chase/BOA have the North and South Carolina thing going on.

    Citi has Tampa and Nashville.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Oh, and one more thing, Goldman and others are moving to these locations not necesarility for the "go-getter" types. They are moving for lower cost.

  • Juice||

    Have fun with your 3% beer.

  • ChrisO||

    That's why you do the run to Wyoming to stock up on real alcohol every now and then.

    That said, my dad worked for a company with a Utah subsidiary, and he regular got a kick out of my reaction when he'd threaten to move us to Utah.

  • montana mike||

    Polygamy Porter, anyone?

  • Zeb||

    A lot of them do indeed seem to prefer the crowded shithole. It's not my thing either, but people do actually like living in big cities and New York is a pretty remarkable place in spite of the people who run it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They are moving for lower cost.

    You're getting warm...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Have fun with your 3% beer.

    Myth.

  • ChrisO||

    It wasn't a myth 20 years ago when I had the misfortune of getting stuck at the SLC airport on a snow delay. Even the bartender spent her time telling me how eager she was to get the hell out of Utah.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    stop acting like the insurance companies are victims - they'r not, they're perpetrators and beneficiaries.

    To be clear, I definitely do not think they are victims. They colluded all along the way, and wrote the rules to their advantage. It seems to me we are already seeing the insurance companies being set up to be portrayed as the bad guys. The geniuses in Max Baucus' smoky little "Let's Make a Deal" back room were establishing the basic incentive structure, and now they'll be throwing their hands up and saying, "Who, MEEEE? Those mean old insurance lobbyists tricked us!"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It seems to me we are already seeing the insurance companies being set up to be portrayed as the bad guys.

    Sure, just like Obama portrays Wall Street as the bad guys even as his administration shovels tons of money into the biggest firms there and protects them from competition via regulation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Obama plays the fascist or SA Caudillo game very well; of rabble rousing against evil rich businesses while simultaneously increasing their wealth and protecting their position (and taking a cut for himself of course).

  • OneOut||

    Let's not forget that out of every shovelful a couple of handfuls fall into Obama'a pockets.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Sure, just like Obama portrays Wall Street as the bad guys even as his administration shovels tons of money into the biggest firms there and protects them from competition via regulation.

    Absolutely.

  • carminakaka||

    my friend's aunt makes $73/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her pay was $14848 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it
    =========================

    http://www.works23.com
    =========================

  • kiyajeena||

    Only seriously interested people will be warmly welcomed,Thanks­,,you have to work using a computer and internet.if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem. I have been working with this for a month and have made over $➥➠➥­➠➥17,000 already. let me know if you need more here you go

    ➥➠➥➠➥➠➥➠➥➠➥➠➥➠➥­➠➥
    http://www.works23.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement