Obamacare

The High Cost of Cheap Health Insurance

|

Whitehouse.gov

Here's what the Obama administration wants you to know about health insurance premiums under Obamacare: On average, people who selected subsidized insurance plans through the federally-run insurance exchange paid $82 a month, out of their own pockets, for health insurance. People who selected "silver" health plans—the most popular tier of coverage offered in the exchange—paid less: $69 per month, on average. Almost 70 percent of the people who signed up for subsidized plans through the federal exchanges are paying less than $100.

Those are the average premium prices that the Obama administration highlights in a press release touting a new government report on Obamacare and health premiums.

But there are several things to remember about those figures.

One is that they're incomplete. The data released by the administration doesn't account for premiums in the 14 states that ran their own exchanges this year.

Another is that those averages conceal an awful lot of variation. Even with the federally run exchange covering the majority of states, Obamacare varies quite a bit from state to state. Out of pocket insurance costs in Mississippi averaged about $23 a month, but came in at $148 in New Jersey. About a third of people buying subsidized coverage through the federal marketplace were paying more than $100. And the report focuses on the majority of participating individuals who bought subsidized coverage: 14 percent of people who selected plans in the federal exchange through the end of open enrollment got no tax credits at all.

That's another thing to remember: The administration's premium averages are based on out-of-pocket costs after the law's tax credits and subsidies are factored in. Those subsidies end up offsetting quite a bit of the cost of insurance under Obamacare. But if you strip away the subsidies, individual market health insurance has, on average, become significantly more expensive in the wake of Obamacare, according to a newly published analysis by the Manhattan Institute.

Relying on a 3,137 county comparison of the five cheapest individual plans available prior to Obamacare with the five cheapest plans through the exchanges, the study by health policy fellow Yevgeniy Feyman found that, on average, premiums were up 49 percent under Obamacare. Again, that's an average, and it masks some variation—in New York, which had unusually restrictive, badly designed health insurance market rules prior to Obamacare, premiums are actually down quite a bit—but it indicates that the overall trend for unsubsidized premiums is up.

The difference, then, is being made up by federal subsidies. According to the administration's report, those subsidies are carrying 76 percent of the total cost of subsidized insurance plans selected in the federal exchange. The out-of-pocket average is $82. But the actual average premium price, without subsidies, is $346.

To the extent that insurance is relatively cheap, it's because taxpayers are footing a big chunk of the bill. Obamacare didn't reduce the price of insurance; if anything it raised it—and then used tax revenues to cover the difference.

That's frequently how subsidies work—they lower the out-of-pocket price tag, but, by separating consumers from meaningful price signals, they also distort markets in ways that drive up the overall cost, leaving the public to pick up the ever-growing tab.

There's already evidence that this is happening with Obamacare. As the Los Angeles Times reports today, "while the generous subsidies helped consumers, they also risk inflating the new health law's price tag in its first year." If premiums and subsidy levels in the state-run exchanges that were left out of the report generally match up with the federal government, then the Times estimates that the total for subsidies this year could run as high as $16.5 billion—significantly more than the roughly $10 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Obama administration wants everyone to know how cheap insurance is under Obamacare. But they don't really want people to think about how expensive it is to keep it that way.

NEXT: In Defense of Hillary Clinton's Lackluster Response on Gay Marriage

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.

  1. So the problems of a third-party payer system are made worse by adding a fourth-party payer layer. Nobody saw that coming!

    1. If only you damn libertarians could have warned us!

    2. We need a fifth-layer payer layer! Duh!!!

      1. For that government should play a major role to rethink the cost of cheap health insurance.

  2. Everyone should know that you can’t add massive government bureaucracy and administrative costs to something and reduce the costs. But a majority of Americans are dumber than shit, so of course they get away with telling some whoppers, and will continue to get away with it.

    1. Everyone should know that you can’t add massive government bureaucracy and administrative costs to something and reduce the costs.

      Some people really do believe that by putting government in charge of something it becomes cheaper and more expensive because money isn’t wasted on profits to the rich.

      When you think about it it makes no sense, but hey. People aren’t taught to think anymore. They’re taught to feel.

      1. Just read any of Tony’s post (or check out the facebook comments on Reason articles) and you’ll find that even though they SHOULD know, they don’t.

      2. The talking points on this write themselves: corporate greed ruins what should be a government-guaranteed right; this is the unfortunate result of Obama attempting to compromise and use a free-market based solution; now that the market has failed, the only sensible option is for the government to nationalize the entire system, which will finally allow it to control costs; if that doesn’t work, it’s because of the unpatriotic Republican saboteurs intentionally wrecking the system.

        1. TO Paranoid: I’ve suspected that this was the master plan of Obamacare all along – to take over the health care system and nationalize it. If not, could lawmakers really be that naive and incompetent? (OK – dumb question)

      3. Some people really do believe that by putting government in charge of something it becomes cheaper and more expensive because money isn’t wasted on profits to the rich.

        I think you mean less expensive. In any event people don’t seem to realize that without the profit motive there is no incentive to keep costs down.

    2. the majority of Americans hated this law and didn’t want it passed. So they are not quite that dumb.

      1. Well, they apparently were not smart enough to restrain from giving Dems a super majority in congress and a dem POTUS.

        1. Reaction to George Bush combined with an oncoming recession, caused an over reaction.

        2. They gave Dems a super majority two years before they elected a lying sack of shit for president who had campaigned against Hillary’s idea of mandatory health insurance. Where the showed how dumb they are is when they re-elected the lying sack of shit.

      2. Actually, the polling found that about 40% supported it and 25% plus wanted something MORE (socialist) – that’s 65% plus….

        Kinda like those polls where they ask if you consider yourself fiscally conservative – and then they take the results and say we are a conservative country!

        (I would consider myself VERY fiscally conservative…yet am as far as can be from Bush/Newt/Santorum/PalinsButtFace and all the other pols that the Kochs and Reason are supporting.

        1. Bush/Newt/Santorum/PalinsButtFace and all the other pols that the Kochs and Reason are supporting.

          Because Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin wield so much political power. They’re like gods.

          How much exactly do the Koch brothers pay Newt to hang out at CNN’s Crossfire?

          And, do you go crazy with CNN derangement syndrome, the same way you do with Koch derangement syndrome?

          I’m pretty sure that the Koch brothers are conspiring with TLC to produce Sarah Palin’s Alaska as part of a corporatist plot to control the entire nation, making it just libertarian enough so that corporations can pollute. Because we all know how eager politicians are to enact binding global warming initiatives, otherwise.

        2. Hint: High taxes and lots of government “services” != fiscally conservative.

          But then again you think socialism actually works…

  3. But, but, but… Intentions!

  4. Here’s what the Obama administration wants you to know about health insurance premiums under Obamacare: On average, people who selected subsidized insurance plans through the federally-run insurance exchange paid $82 a month, out of their own pockets, for health insurance. People who selected “silver” health plans?the most popular tier of coverage offered in the exchange?paid less: $69 per month, on average. Almost 70 percent of the people who signed up for plans through the exchanges are paying less than $100.

    WTF is the thinking behind this from a PR perspective? Doesn’t this just license everyone paying more than that to be angry that they’re subsidizing a bunch of fuckface strangers? These are some low motherfucking numbers and I know they are making me want to smack a bitch.

    1. People are selecting the “silver” plans because the “bronze” plans are so shitty, you might as well not get insurance and then go to Dr. Nick for all of your medical needs.

    2. It’s very simple from a PR perspective. The dumb fucks whose support Obama counts on just want to hear that poorer people got subsidized cheap insurance. That they’re subsidizing it themselves is way beyond their capacity for rational thought. Especially if they can assume (very incorrectly) that it’s actually rich people who are doing the subsidizing and not them.

      1. But how many people could reasonably assume that? I mean, even among retards? Most people are probably seeing more than that deducted on their own pay stubs.

        1. How stupid have Obama supporters proven themselves to be? Think about that and then answer your question.

        2. Most people are economic ignoramuses, and if they do know anything it’s probably Keynesianism 101 which makes them economic ignoramuses.

        3. Also I forgot to add that you have to remember that these people operate on envy and hate. They’ll take a hit to their income if they feel like the people they hate and envy (the rich) are getting hit a lot harder. There is nothing more destructive and pointless than envy. It’s an emotion that would rather see everyone involved suffer rather than allow anyone to win.

          1. Look, I would like to see a lot of people suffer too, but I can still tell when one number is bigger than another and I’m the one getting f’ed in the a.

            1. But you like that!

              1. Sigh. You know I meant “in the bad way.”

            2. “but I can still tell when one number is bigger than another”

              You haven’t been around any Leftie’s recently. First, their mostly in denial that insurance rates have gone up.

              Secondly, the one’s who are willing to admit that rates are going up are using a host of excuses to blame anything else. Rates going up are a fault of greedy insurance companies using Obamacare as a reason to raise rates. This is just normal (because they all go up a lot every year) and Obamacare will fix that, in the future. Rates are only going up in the individual market and it’s so small it doesn’t really count. Etc.

      2. The dumb fucks whose support Obama counts on just want to hear that poorer people got subsidized cheap insurance.

        No quite. They want to hear that poor people got cheap insurance AND that SOMEONE ELSE PAID FOR IT.

        The dumb fucks who support Obama did so on the assumption someone else would be paying for all of the ponies. They are finding out that the joke is on them and that they are in fact paying for it.

    3. ” Doesn’t this just license everyone paying more than that to be angry that they’re subsidizing a bunch of fuckface strangers? ”

      anyone who objects is [racists/sexist/both]

      1. You forgot all the good stuff. They hate the poor, childins, and wiminz.

    4. The shittiest plan I qualified for when I looked was $600/month for my wife and I. This was super-high deductible shit insurance. Thankfully I’m shifting onto my wife’s group plan, but it would suck big time if she lost her job in the next 3 years.

  5. I don’t need the Manhattan Institute to tell me that my insurance premiums are much higher and my benefits lower than they were 5 years ago.

    1. Thanks to a combination of a salary freeze and the Unaffordable Care Act, my taxable income is down by close to five grand a year compared to five years ago. As in a hundred bucks a week. It sucks. And I can’t be the only one.

      1. my premiums are okay. but the employer is taking on the bulk of that. i did get hit with the medicare surtax.

      2. my premiums are okay. but the employer is taking on the bulk of that. i did get hit with the medicare surtax.

      3. You’re not. I pointed out to my boss and an administrator in my department, a couple of weeks ago, that although I am making around 6k more a year than I was 5 years ago, my take home pay is less. Couple that with the soaring inflation(yes, it is real) we are seeing right now, it probably means that my effective income has been reduced by about 10k or more in 5 years.

      4. I took a couple hundred dollar a year hit. My employer took great pride in previously paying 100% so they took most of the brunt of the increase. On the other hand, my wife’s employer passed on the increase to the staff to the tune of what you got hit with. So instead of our $9000/year savings like Obama promised, we got hit with about $5000/year in additional expenses for plans that aren’t as good as we had.

    2. It is just bad luck Drake. It would have been worse if Obama hadn’t tried to help.

      That is going to be the prog line as all of this collapses. Progs really don’t understand cause and effect. They honestly think that their leaders are just victims of forces beyond anyone’s control when their policies inevitably result in disaster and misery. The idea that their policies might be responsible for the misery that always seem to follow their implementation is something that is beyond Progs’ comprehension. The world is a mysterious place to progs.

      1. They want it to collapse, because then the only choice is single payer, which they’re not going to get, which will be a surprise to them.

        But neither will Ocare be repealed, there’s too many goodies hidden in there that both teams like. Instead, they will FIX Ocare and shove it full of more goodies that both teams like.

        1. I don’t buy the “there are too many gooodies in there” theory. There just are not any goodies. You guys think there is because that is usually how Washington works. It is not an irrational default position but it underestimates just how stupid and destructive this is. Obamacare is truly a special case. Ir manages to be a welfare program that doesn’t benefit any significant constituency. If you don’t believe me, look at the defenses its supporters offer. If it were a goodie program, its defenders would be pointing to all of these benefits and success stories and asking how could we possibly cut these people off. That is not what they are doing. Instead, they are just offering irrational defenses like “its too late to change it” and “its the law and we need to move on”. They are doing that because that is all they have. They would certainly love to have a sob story to point to. But they don’t. We need to stop with the “but there are too many goodies to kill this line”. It is just not true. There are no goodies. This law fucks everyone and the only people who are defending it are doing so because of their irrational and personal attachment to Obama and his “signature achievement”.

          1. People with preexisting conditions are happy, but that’s about it.

            1. I can actually see it being really hard to walk back the “free” BC thing. Because all of a sudden a monthly errand just became a completely different, currency-free transaction, for tens of millions of people (I can only assume). Anyway, mostly I agree with John, and this is in fact a pathetic benefit to point to, but it’s a behavior change that I think will be sticky.

            2. And not even many of them. Even if you have a pre-existing condition, it only helps you if you can both afford the premium and the deductable. Making me buy insurance I can’t afford and pay a deductable I can’t pay as a condition of treatment for a pre-existing condition I was managing to live with before now, isn’t doing me that many favors.

              Some people no doubt benefit but not all. Moreover, unless they have a chronic condition, they will quickly get their preexisting condition solved and be stuck paying for overpriced crappy insurance like the rest of us.

              1. That’s the thing. You don’t have to pay the deductible. You can just say ‘fuck it’ and let them sue. That’s why so many practices don’t take this crap insurance. They know that they’ll have to use collection agencies to get paid the deductible, so they’re opting out entirely.

                1. Good point sarcasmic. But think about it, what good is the insurance for my pre-existing condition if I can’t find a doctor who takes it or I am stuck paying premiums I can’t afford for months before I do?

                  1. I understand. Just pointing out that deductibles don’t have to be paid. My wife’s OBGYN dropped our insurance. It might have something to do with a four thousand dollar deductible that I haven’t finished paying off for a surgery she had a couple years ago. I send them what I can every month. Not going to stick them because I always pay my debts, but that puts me in a distinct minority.

          2. I don’t buy the “there are too many gooodies in there” theory.

            You’ve got to be kidding. This is the governments gateway to use healthcare to meddle into every single aspect of your life. And there is not many things that both teams don’t cherish the thought of meddling with.

            1. No both teams want votes. The point of stealing is to get re-elected. Yeah meddling in people’s lives is a nice perk of the job but you only do that as a side business to getting reelected and stealing.

              I know this is shocking such that you just can’t believe it. But there is no free shit brigade for this bill. No one is getting free shit. Everyone is getting fucked. It is amazing but it is actually true.

              Maybe they will never repeal it. But if they don’t it won’t be because there are all of these goodies because there are no goodies. So you are going to have to come up with a different reason than that. Maybe the Dems will filibuster any repeal because they just can’t bring themselves to undo the Black Jesus’ signature achievement and admit it is a disaster. That is possible. In fact, it is so possible it is a good reason to think they will never get single payer. The left can only get single payer if they come out and admit Obama’s signature achievement failed. Good luck getting their brain dead followers to buy that.

              1. Everyone is getting fucked. It is amazing but it is actually true.

                Yes. “God damn the United States of America.” I don’t know about God, but Obama and crew seem to be doing their level best.

              2. “The left can only get single payer if they come out and admit Obama’s signature achievement failed. Good luck getting their brain dead followers to buy that.”

                You’re selling short their ability to spin. It won’t be long before you start hearing that Barack Obama’s signature legislation has ‘paved the way’ to a single payer system, much like they are now spinning that Hillary Care ‘paved the way’ to the ACA.

    3. Yeah, but apparently you need them to note that under Republican majorities the rates went up over 10% a year and that they have recently slowed to 3-8%.

      That’s a massive difference when taken against the 2.7 TRILLION we spend each year on predatory capitalistic health care.

      1. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 5:17PM|#
        “Yeah, but apparently you need them to note that under Republican majorities the rates went up over 10% a year and that they have recently slowed to 3-8%.”
        Given that you are a constant liar we’ll need to see a cite for that.
        —————-
        “That’s a massive difference when taken against the 2.7 TRILLION we spend each year on predatory capitalistic health care.”
        As opposed to the murderous socialistic health care?

        1. Nice. Call someone a constant liar and then ask them for proof that any educated or informed person would know off the top of their head….

          “The rate of increase has slowed in the past decade ? from 9.5 percent in 2002 to 3.9 percent in 2010”
          (From Aetna – 2002 was just one year, but other years were similar, if not more).

          Those are health care COSTS. What they are not telling you is that insurance rates rose even higher and faster…for one single reason. The could do it. That’s free market capitalism – skin ’em if and when you can. And, under Bush, you could.

          As soon as Obama was elected the word went out that – no matter what – there was going to be increased efficiencies (responsibility, less fraud) in the system – ACA or no ACA.

          As a result, costs are expected to increase between 4 and 6% in the present. Consider that inflation is 2, that means about 3% over inflation, while in the Bush years it was 6% plus. That’s DOUBLE the rate of growth.

          Yeah, I know. You guys don’t do number too well….

          Here are the stats of TOTAL us health care expenses – increase in %

          2002 9.5%
          2003 8.6%
          2004 7.2%
          2005 6.8%
          2006 6.5%
          2007 6.3%
          2008 4.7% (great recession)
          2009 3.8% (Obama in Office!)
          2010 3.8%
          2011 3.6%
          2012 3.7%

          When GW took office in 2000, per capita costs in the US were $4878.
          When GW left office in 2009, per capita costs were $8163.

          Infant mortality in the USA has also declined quite a bit since 2008, meaning we are getting more for our money.

          1. According to your own stats (links?) the “increase in healthcare expense” went down under Bush even while we were fight two wars. You mentioned recession (caused by lax lending standards implemented before Bush) which was certainly a factor.

            If my rent went up by 10% in 2005 but went up only by 5% in 2010, is that supposed to be great news? If the baseline is already high, then any “decrease” in the increase means a D+ is better than a F-.

            2005 was a golden year compared to the Obama years. Me and scores of my friends had full time jobs. When unemployment is like 5%, you have money to spend, the “expenses” can rise and you won’t be in trouble.

            Obama hasn’t decreased healthcare spending. It’s not really relevant that he might have slowed the GROWTH of spending.

          2. Your numbers show a decline in the growth of health care expense each and every year you listed, which doesn’t in and of itself show anything special for what obama did. A secound order dirriviative, measureing the % change in the rate of change, would be more useful, and since I like numbers I did that below, just to see what comes out of that. So bellow is a measure of the % change of the % change.

            2002:0% (no previous year to compare)
            2003:-9.47%
            2004:-16.28%
            2005:-5.55%
            2006:-4.41%
            2007:-3.08%
            2008:-25.40%
            2009:-19.15%
            2010:0%
            2011:-5.26%
            2012:2.78%

            As you can see, the growth in the rate of growth has been negative over almost your entire range, meaning the rate of increase in health care cost has been declining over most of the time, with massive relative decreases in the rate of growth during the ressession years of 2008 and 2009.

            The trends are actually worst in your range during the Obama years: you had no change in growth, an average change in growth (based on pre-recession trends) and a increase in the rate of growth in 2012, when Obamacare started to really have any teeth in the real world.

            Thus, the most honest argument might be that Obama has reversed previous downward trends in growth, possibly causing a 5% uptick in the rate of healthcare cost growth.

            1. Hmmm…Looks like our resident Masshole, Craig, moved on to another subject after JagerIV blew his “argument” out of the water! If you’re losing, change the subject, I guess. haha

              Craiginmass, mind coming back and replying to JagerIV? Wait – why am I asking for that? Craig doesn’t have a clue and he won’t get one. You can’t give him a clue!

          3. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 9:16PM|#
            “Nice. Call someone a constant liar and then ask them for proof that any educated or informed person would know off the top of their head….”

            Uh, liar.
            Fuck off, slaver.

          4. if you’re claiming that the American healthcae system was capitalistic, or even close, or even far but still kinda like it, then YOU are the one who’s lying

            the American healthcare system was as capitalistic as a turtle is agile

      2. Let’s go to the evidence, Bob!

        “Excess growth decreased from more than 3% during 2003 to less than 1% starting in July 2005 and continuing, for the most part, until near the end of the recession in June 2009. Excess growth exceeded 1% during the post-recession period, until May 2011, when it again dropped below 1%…”

        Moron. The rate of growth slowed well before your messiah was out of his community organizer diapers. In fact the primary reason is likely the advent of HSA’s and HDHP’s, both of which you socialists vehemently opposed.

  6. “But if you strip away the subsidies, individual market health insurance has, on average, become significantly more expensive in the wake of Obamacare”

    Isn’t it just as fair to say that, “even if you leave the subsidies IN, health insurance has, on average, become significantly more expensive = its just that the rest of the Bill is being paid by taxpayers.”

    And that this is exactly what allows things to become more ‘expensive’. By hiding costs.

    The myth the progs rely on is the expression of ‘costs’ in terms that pretend that Government Spending is free. Or ‘efficient’. (somehow, the allocation of Tax Dollars has no waste built into it). Its pretty much the same gag they attempt with Electric Cars. They’re MORE EFFICIENT! (if you ignore everything that actually brings them into existence and everything they rely on to get charged up. Except for *all that*, they’re AMAZING!)

    1. All they acknowledge is the seen. The unseen is, well, unseen. Broken windows 101.

    2. To some degree yes. But also penaltaxing the living shit out of anyone who doesn’t purchase the product also has the effect of making the demand curve a bit inelastic and thus more expensive.

      The real cause of the increase in premiums is not hidden costs or subsidies. It is mandating that every plan cover various hobby horses of Liberal interest groups regardless of whether the insured wants it or not. Make every plan cover more shit and the plans will get more expensive.

      1. These plans that cover everything have deductibles in the thousands, so in practice they cover nothing.

        1. And yet, prices of them are higher than the low deductible plans that preceded them. So where is the money going?

          You would think the insurance companies. But they are losing their ass and Obama is having to break the law to bail them out. Where the hell that money going? It isn’t going to the government, this is costing the government a fortune. And it isn’t going to doctors, they are leaving the profession in droves. Maybe it is going to the poor. But we were already giving them free care anyway. You tell me.

          1. It’s going to people in the medical fields. There’s a lot more than just doctors out there delivering health care.

            1. Who in the medical fields? If the insurance companies are going broke and the government is cutting the hell out of what they will pay under medicare and medicaide, I don’t see who that would be.

              1. Nurses and lab techs and paper pushers and such seem to be doing OK.

                1. Maybe so. But if the best you can do to justify this is “but the nurses and lab techs are doing well” this law won’t last long.

                  1. I dunno. If they threaten that health care jobs will be in peril if they change the law, they’ll get a lot of support. I mean, my wife’s entire family practically works in health care. And most of them are liberals. Unfortunately I’m not sure what they think because I don’t talk politics with liberals unless I don’t mind alienating them.

                    1. I don’t talk politics with liberals unless I don’t mind alienating them.

                      This is why I like you sarc, that’s exactly how I think.

              2. consultants.

              3. Hospitals to a large extent and home health care.

  7. Don’t forget the deductibles. Comparing total out of pocket costs for people that will actually use their insurance is more important than just the premiums.

    1. Those deductibles are several thousand dollars, and the insurance doesn’t cover shit. So they pay for the insurance, and then pay practically all the health care costs until they go through the deductible. Then they keep paying because not all of the cost of care is actually applied to the deductible. Only what the insurance would have paid, which is less than what was charged, which is why no one wants to accept the new insurance. They’re not going to get paid. And that can be blamed on corporate greed, which demands more government intervention.

      1. Yes, The idea is to punish as many people as possible and make them unhappy with their health care. They never could get single payer because the vast majority of people in this country were happy with their health care. Well Obama care is going to solve that problem. The hope is that it will create so much misery that people will demand single payer. I don’t think the imbeciles who wrote it think that far ahead. But the really vicious leftists who are behind Obama do. They are ecstatic at the idea of racist America finally suffering like they deserve and losing their healthcare which was really just provided on the backs of the poor.

        I don’t think it will work out like they think it will. You think it will. But if it does, it will be the first time anyone ever voluntarily voted for communism as opposed to having it enforced on them.

        1. There are two ways of reducing the cost of health care. The first is to do what the rest of the developed world does, which controls costs through rationing and limitations of the sort of services provided. The other is “free market” which means no drug laws, certification by private agencies instead of licensing. Unfortunately most people would probably pick the first choice over the second…

  8. There must be a lot of zeroes in that average. My ObamaCare premium is $499 per month for a high-deductible policy.

    1. You make the mistake of actually trying to earn a living. Obama doesn’t like that.

  9. My mother in law went in the hospital last night for a minor but persistent infection. She was admitted at 10 am and didn’t get a room until 8 pm. This was at a good private suburban hospital. If it is that bad there, God only knows what it is like in poorer areas.

    Don’t forget that in addition to all of this increase in cost, Obamacare worst of all does all kinds of things to limit the supply of medical care. The plan is constructed to ensure that the middle class pay more for their health care and get much less of it. The entire idea seems to have been to make sure the middle class suffers as much as possible. Obama really wanted to set the bitter clingers down a peg with this one.

    1. if you are very poor or very ill, you’ll come out ahead. everything else is just didn’t fit well into the talking points.

      1. I don’t even buy that. If you are very ill, a shortage of hospital beds and doctors is a huge problem. Maybe it works if you are very poor. But, thanks to medicaide and federal law, the very poor were getting care for free anyway. How are they benefiting?

        I have yet to hear a convincing case for anyone who benefits from this. I suppose if you had a really expensive condition that was considered pre existing and now is covered, you benefit. But that is a pretty small group of people.

        1. sorry — i meant on paper.

          1. meaning they can likely point to covered lives or something for the Medicaid population and call it a win. actually delivery of care is too hard to measure, those emails got deleted, etc.

            1. IT WAS A COMPUTER CRASH, PEASANT.

  10. This just tells me that almost everyone is getting subsidies. Which means hardly anyone is paying full price for insurance. Which means hardly anyone who isn’t getting subsidies thinks it is worth it.

    1. And that’s why only 12% of the population wants to keep Obamacare just the way it is.

    2. This what happens when you fuck up price signals. You get people to spend money on things they otherwise wouldn’t consider worth the money.

      The fact that almost everyone is getting heavily subsidized means the market is really signalling “$346 a month for health insurance isn’t worth the money.”

      But guess what? The health insurers and privders aren’t going ot get that signal, because the taxpayers are being force to pay the premiums anyway.

    3. I’m getting the subsidies and I sure as hell don’t think it’s worth it.

      I admit I’m probably in the minority on that one.

  11. Yeah, yeah… Mandating health insurance is the worst . Probably hitler did something like this…

    In the meantime check out the latest wsj article from the real heroes behind ending the Iraq war. They laid out a blueprint for a blueprint for ending the Iraq war and deserve credit for withdrawing the troops.

    http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/d…..2?mobile=y

    1. “Yeah, yeah… Mandating health insurance is the worst … In the meantime check out”

      Translation: I don’t like this story, let’s talk about something else.

    2. Gee, commie kid, the news on that lying bastard in the WH not real good these days?

  12. Obamacare didn’t cut costs because everything in the US is for sale..but, he has insured millions that didn;t have access before, and that is a good thing.

    We should push for a Single Payer system, incorporate the medical aspects of the VA into the system and beat down our ‘for profit’ medical system, such as negotiating with drug companies to match the costs they charge other countries like Canada, where drugs cost 1/3 of that we pay here. This sums up what’s wrong with not only Obamacare, but the whole US medical system:

    5 charts which show why Americans should be jealous of the NHS | ampp3d http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/201…..f-the-nhs/

    1. Without the profit motive there is no incentive to keep costs down.

    2. The VA rations the services it provides. Mainly because all single payer systems are also subject to “cost cutting” by politicians who want to “cut taxes”.

      So services get cut, some people end up either living in pain or dying because the money isn’t there to take care of them. With single payer your health care costs become someone else’s taxes. And if that “someone else” doesn’t want to pay those taxes, you’re “out of luck”!

      1. Technically speaking, the VA is single-provider, not single-payer. TRICARE/CHAMPUS would be closer to an example of single-payer.

    3. “such as negotiating with drug companies to match the costs they charge other countries like Canada, where drugs cost 1/3 of that we pay here.”

      The US is paying for a big chunk of that very expensive R&D. So, the drug companies would either stop selling to Canada and keep the prices high or stop investing in research for new drugs.

      Of course, We could always drastically lower the cost for FDA approval, but somehow that’s never an option on the Left’s agenda.

    4. John B. Egan|6.18.14 @ 4:35PM|#
      …”We should push for a Single Payer system”…

      Fuck off, slaver.

    5. And what is the 5 year survival rate for major cancers in the UK? What are wait times? What is the prescription rate for medically indicated chronic treatments such as statins? Why do a third of Canadians seek treatment in the US every year? What is the wait time to see a primary in Canada–what is the wait time to even GET a primary in Canada?

      How many new drugs have come from your socialized medicine states in the last 30 years? How many have come from the US? Why do you think that is?

      The VA is universally known for its poor care and you’re advocating for more of it even when it was just shown to have killed over 18 patients with its queues. Just what is your definition of insanity?

    6. If you like the secret VA list you are on where you don’t get healthcare, you can stay on the secret VA list you are on.

  13. The other choice would have been for the government to do things that would reduce the cost of health care in the US. However any of these would reduce the incomes of those working in the field of health care. The major reason that health care pays so good is because of government regulations that make health care a “protected industry” not subject to the cost controlling aspects of the free market. In a true free market there are no drug laws, no prescription laws. Certification is used instead of licensing. There are various “grades” of providers and any professional organization lack the political power to obtain favorable regulation. In such as case, health care remains much more “affordable”.

  14. A question for all you folks commenting on the people getting subsidized health insurance “that somebody else is paying for” — how many of you enjoy employer provided health insurance?

    All the Libertarian and conservative pundits like to talk about the need to expose heath care and health insurance to free market forces, but I notice very few calls for doing away with employer provided health insurance, which covers something like 75% of the population under age 65. Folks, employer provided health insurance, along with its ties to the tax code, is the biggest reason our health care/health insurance system has so many problems and is so expensive. Unless you’re willing to scrap employer provided health insurance, with all its subsidies, tax breaks, and pre-existing condition protections (which were mandated before the ACA) — then you don’t have much credibility on this topic.

    1. Seems like a few liberals swooped in to comment…Well, in another long line of replies to posts where people don’t understand libertarians, we don’t like employer-provided health insurance either. It costs you more in your paycheck’s back-end, and helps tie you to your employer and thus hindering your employment mobility. There’s probably some other bullets but this is a quick post before I leave for the day.

      Here’s a good book if you are interested:

      http://www.amazon.com/Catastro…..405&sr=8-1

      1. steedamike|6.18.14 @ 5:04PM|#
        …”Well, in another long line of replies to posts where people don’t understand libertarians,”…

        Yep, some brain-dead lefty heard about Atlas Shrugged from a web-review and all of a sudden said brain-dead is an expert on libertarianism.
        And then wonders why he’s called brain-dead.

        1. I’m clear on the Libertarian view on health care, I just think too many make their comments from the comfort of employer provided health insurance. See my other responses on this thread. I’ll concede my initial comment was better suited to National Review — but I’ve made similar comments on their site.

          1. blondrealist|6.19.14 @ 11:15AM|#
            “I’m clear on the Libertarian view on health care, I just think too many make their comments from the comfort of employer provided health insurance.”

            Are you trying for the gold in “Stupid”?
            Employers do not “provide” it; it is a substitute for pay.
            The government has fucked it up so it is non-taxed and every libertarian I know will take non-taxed income everywhere they can.
            Which still leaves you with a non-argument.

      2. I understand Libertarians, I just suspect that many self-proclaimed Libertarians make their comments about Obamacare from the comfort of employer-provided health insurance. I’ll concede this is more true of main stream “conservatives”, especially of Republicans in Congress. You no doubt have noted that none of the health care reform proposals from the GOP or think tanks like the AEI call for dismantling the current tax favored employer provided health insurance system. At best, they want to “level the playing field” by allowing individuals the same tax break as businesses.

        I agree with Libertarians on many issues. Having said that, I believe the free market falls short when it comes to health insurance (which is not the same as health care). I find Switzerland’s approach more compelling. They have an individual mandate for basic coverage, which dozens of insurance companies compete for (at no profit, guaranteed issue, no pre-existing condition exclusions). The insurance companies make their profits from selling supplemental policies. No job lock, 99% universal coverage, doctors in private practice — and arguably the best health care in the world. Of course, Switzerland is small, culturally cohesive, and wealthy (wealthier than the U.S. on both a per-capita income basis and per-capita accumulated wealth basis). And Switzerland has no minimum wage law. Interesting, don’t you think?

        1. blondrealist|6.19.14 @ 10:47AM|#
          “I understand Libertarians, I just suspect that many self-proclaimed Libertarians make their comments about Obamacare from the comfort of employer-provided health insurance.”

          Which means you don’t.

    2. Hmm… I seem to someone named Obama (D) attacking someone named McCain (R) when he proposed this very change.

      Oh yeah, that’s right: http://articles.latimes.com/20…..-campaign5

    3. Employer paid health insurance is a “benefit” like any other. The cost of it either comes out of wages and salaries paid or in the form of higher prices for the goods or services produced. It is not a “free lunch”. The only advantage is that employer paid group policies do tend to cover “pre-existing conditions” so in some cases people are “ahead of the game”. There are also lower administrative costs for the insurance company, so they can provide the group plan for less than separate individual policies would cost.

      1. The employers gets a tax deduction, the employee does have reduced wages, but workers are so used to this that they ignore it (or are ignorant) — and because employees are insulated from most of the cost, and typically have low deductibles and co-pays — they don’t have enough skin in the game to be motivated to exercise their powers and health care consumers or health insurance consumers. I would argue that decades of so little skin in the game far offsets the administrative savings you mention for group plans. See my other responses on this thread. I never intended to present myself as a liberal — my comments were pointed more at “conservatives” (The GOP) than true Libertarians. Additionally, I suspect plenty of fans of Reason have never been faced with buying their own health insurance. Insurance companies (pre-ACA) turn down applications frequently — and not just for people with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, or other serious chronic conditions. I’m not advocating single payer. I find Switzerland’s approach more compelling.

        1. blondrealist|6.19.14 @ 11:07AM|#
          …”and because employees are insulated from most of the cost, and typically have low deductibles and co-pays — they don’t have enough skin in the game to be motivated to exercise their powers and health care consumers or health insurance consumers”…

          Which is the reason that libertarian dislike the arrangement.

    4. Unless you’re willing to scrap employer provided health insurance, with all its subsidies, tax breaks, and pre-existing condition protections (which were mandated before the ACA) — then you don’t have much credibility on this topic.

      Abolish any subsidies and “minimum coverage” regulations, then extend the tax break to all taxpayers, employed or otherwise. Furthermore, allow all individuals to set up health savings accounts, with no contribution or balance restrictions, tax-free. Then remove all the ridiculous limits on how those dollars can be spent.

      Credible enough for you?

    5. …”but I notice very few calls for doing away with employer provided health insurance, which covers something like 75% of the population under age 65.”…

      So you don’t read much regarding libertarian views and then gripe they don’t sound libertarian?
      You’re either blind or an idiot; there is near zero support for that left-over WWII price fix.

      1. I read a lot regarding Libertarian views, I just don’t think many self-proclaimed Libertarians are willing to walk the walk — like you and some others that have commented on my post.

        I’ll concede my criticism is more for “conservatives” (the GOP) than for Libertarians.

        1. blondrealist|6.19.14 @ 10:50AM|#
          “I read a lot regarding Libertarian views,”
          As is obvious, you may read a lot, but you are ignorant of the issues.

          “I just don’t think many self-proclaimed Libertarians are willing to walk the walk — like you and some others that have commented on my post.”
          As is obvious, you have no idea what you’re posting about.
          What do you mean ‘walk the walk’?

    6. Not to mention that Medicare has done more to distort the cost of health care in this country than anything else. But yes, by all means do away with the health care pre-tax benefit for employers/employees that your great hero, FDR, brought into being.

      1. FDR is not my hero — you misunderstand my point. I question how many fans of Reason have walked-the-walk of relying only in insurance they buy on their own, not with the help of their employers. The GOP is more deserving of my criticism on this point, so my apologies to all you faithful Libertarians — or the one’s who think they’re faithful Libertarians.

        1. blondrealist|6.19.14 @ 10:55AM|#
          …”I question how many fans of Reason have walked-the-walk of relying only in insurance they buy on their own, not with the help of their employers”

          So, since the government has fucked insurance totally, libertarians are supposed to fall on their swords?
          WIH do you presume to mean by that irrelevancy?

    7. You don’t notice it because you don’t want to notice so you can go around feeling smug and superior to everyone.

      Go die in a fire.

  15. Unrelated topic, but welcome to the brave new world of overt Government censorship:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin…..y-force-it

    1. Wow, the US Patent office is retroactively cancelling a Trademark on the grounds that it is “disparaging to Native Americans.”

    2. Rename them the Whiteskins, that should promote some interesting discussion.

  16. Only one thing more expensive than cheap health insurance…..and that’s no health insurance or coverage at all.

    That’s the “old” plan – just take people in the emergency rooms when they got sick enough – insurance or not. Why worry, Uncle Sam was paying the bill (yes, the Fed Gubment pays hospitals for taking care of folks who are no insured)….

    Anyone of “reason” might understand that old saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” – or, for the libertarian$$$ religious types “a penny in time saves nine”….

    Of course we’d save much more by just going to a single payer and complete universal life insurance, but in the USA you have to take things slowly.

    As Churchill noted “Americans will always do the right thing – but only AFTER all other possibilities are exhausted”. So we WILL have single payer and we will cover everyone….and then we also will have a luxury market on top of that for those who who want caviar in their hospital beds….it’s all just a matter of time.

    You monkeys can stop jumping on the bed now…

    http://digital-storytime.com/i…..onkeys.PNG

    1. “You monkeys can stop jumping on the bed now…”

      And you can go back under the bridge now …

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b5mE…..lpaper.jpg

    2. Craig,

      You won’t find many advocates for “Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act” here. There used to be plenty of charity hospitals before the medicaid/medicare era.

      1. You can’t turn back the clock.

        The corporate “free market” – which included lobbying government for he HMO thing (Kaiser was a personal buddy of Nixon) made it so big money could not resist.

        The incentive was for predatory care. Even now, hospitals with worse results are more profitable.

        The ACA, with all it’s problems, does lead in the other direction – that of incentivizing health and better behavior.

        Funny thing – many of my rightie friends used to chant “skin in the game, skin in the game” about these things until the ACA asked people to put skin in the game. Once they did, the same people cry “socialism, socialism”.

        It’s easy to be a critic. You can find negative books on Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandala, MLK and just about anyone else…

        It’s much harder to actually make decisions and do things.

        1. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 5:55PM|#
          “You can’t turn back the clock.”

          Tell that to the folks in Eastern Europe where most of them got rid of your fave musderous government system.

        2. The corporate “free market” – which included lobbying government for he HMO thing (Kaiser was a personal buddy of Nixon) made it so big money could not resist.

          That is not a free market. A market in which the government grants favors to politically connected companies is a crony market.

          The incentive was for predatory care. Even now, hospitals with worse results are more profitable.

          And all the while libertarians and fellow travelers have been pointing out how these incentives would work well before the laws creating them were passed. Yet people like you either ignore us or call us “obstructionists”.

          The ACA, with all it’s problems, does lead in the other direction – that of incentivizing health and better behavior.

          How is it that the government forcing you to do something with the threat of violence and incarceration is superior to the free market “forcing” you to do the same thing by pricing the alternative out of your reach?

          It’s much harder to actually make decisions and do things.

          Decisions are only hard if you have to deal with the consequences. For politicians, who exempt themselves from the consequences, making decisions that intrude in other people’s lives and restrict other people’s freedom is not hard. It’s not laudable to choose the gun over the the soap box.

        3. “The ACA, with all it’s problems, does lead in the other direction – that of incentivizing health and better behavior.”

          The ACA forces Americans to purchase a high end product, and allows for what amounts to a bailout depending on the amount of the sick in the pool or the revenue. The only “check” on the insurance companies is forbidding them to charge a certain group more than others, but they remedy that by raising the price on everyone. The ACA is the biggest piece of crony capitalism in my lifetime.

          The ACA does nothing to incentivize better health. The crappy hospitals that I go to are as unhelpful as ever. A hospital isn’t a burger joint, it can’t function if it’s flooded by medicaid patients who likely pays no income tax or otherwise significantly support a healthcare system.

        4. Some 2/3 of health care spending is government. How is that a free market? We’re all arguing over the last 1/3 of the pizza here.

        5. Go fuck yourself.

          HEALTHCARE IS NOT A FUCKING RIGHT!

    3. You and your political allies have done everything in your power to fuck up health care in this country, from Medicare to HMO to EMTALA to HIPAA to PPACA. Your political tactics have amounted to punishing the entire country for failing to see the wisdom of total government control. And now here you are to tell us that the suffering will end as soon as we give you everything you want.

      We have a name for people like you: thugs.

      1. “You and your political allies have done everything in your power to fuck up health care in this country,”

        I can assure you that Nixon was not my political ally – surely you are familiar of his views, statements and legislation?

        http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or…..posal.aspx

        “Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis”
        “Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance”
        “First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits; ”

        he Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:

        –Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment,

        –Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons

        –An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.

        1. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 6:05PM|#
          “I can assure you that Nixon was not my political ally – surely you are familiar of his views, statements and legislation?”

          So Nixon is as bad a fuck-up as your fave slime-bags? OK.

        2. The only reason you don’t like Nixon is because he had an R next to his name. If he had been a Democrat and done exactly the same things, he would have been heralded as the successor to Johnson’s legacy. And the HMO Act was spearheaded through Congress by Edward Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and was voted in with overwhelming “bipartisan” support.

          1. As we have said all alone, ACA is a Republican Plan. Newt was big time for it and the Heritage Foundation championed it…..

            Given the choice, we lefties would have went a bit further and not allowed the corporations as much free reign to prey upon the sick and infirm.

            1. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 9:26PM|#
              As we have said all alone, ACA is a Republican Plan. Newt was big time for it and the Heritage Foundation championed it…”

              So you love repubs? I figured an ignoramus like you licks asses in both parties.

            2. I don’t take my marching orders from politicians or lobbyists. I realize that you may never have had an original thought in your life, and so this may be a little difficult for you to comprehend, but I think for myself and make my own decisions.

              Also, the Heritage Foundation, as a public policy think tank, is not beholden to supporting the same things forever, nor are they beholden to support the Frankenstein’s monster version of their ideas.

              Given the choice, you lefties would have run a wrecking ball through the very industries you created. You’re like petulant children. When you don’t get your way, all you know is violence and coercion. If the laws are creating bad incentives, then repeal the laws. Don’t pass more laws that create more bad incentives and cause more people misery.

              The funny thing about everything lefties do is that it never achieves the desired outcome, but the solution somehow can never be to undo the damage that was done, and is instead always to press forward with doing more damage.

              Venezuela and North Korea are your endgames, with every person miserable and under the heel of your boot.

    4. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 5:13PM|#
      “Only one thing more expensive than cheap health insurance…..and that’s no health insurance or coverage at all.”

      Gee, did you bring that strawman all the way from home?

      1. If I understand craiginmass correctly, the ACA simultaneously gives every American access to health care, and keeps costs down by making them pay for it.

        In other words, the ACA attempts to do, poorly and violently, what people would naturally do in a free market if left to their own devices.

        1. Except, they must be FORCED to do it! Craig loves guns, so long as his thugs use them.

          1. The guns are only there because some folks otherwise might not make the correct decisions.

        2. Sure, try out your theory in simcity or simearth or whatever fantasy world you’ve created.

          It never worked. It never will work….and there is no such thing as a free market.

          All there is – is a religion (cult) which you subscribe to that attributes some kind of magical power to the words “free market”. It’s like you are so fascinated by the idea of buying and selling things – that you believe it solves all of mankind’s ills.

          It’s a fundamentalist religion called greed. Nothing new. Just the name and the fact that Koch billions are financing the propaganda.

          1. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 9:21PM|#
            “..and there is no such thing as a free market.”

            Whicj, of course is total bullshit as we should expect from brain-dead lefties.
            Try buying, oh, a computer, ignoramus
            —————–
            “All there is – is a religion (cult) which you subscribe to that attributes some kind of magical power to the words “free market”. It’s like you are so fascinated by the idea of buying and selling things – that you believe it solves all of mankind’s ills.”

            Technologies far enough advanced will always appear as magic to imbeciles.
            ———————-
            “It’s a fundamentalist religion called greed. Nothing new. Just the name and the fact that Koch billions are financing the propaganda.”

            So can we assume you always take jobs at a lower pay than you can get, asshole?
            Oh, and say that magic word “Kock” again! Keep it up! It will get you into lefty HEAVEN!

          2. “All there is – is a religion (cult) which you subscribe to that attributes some kind of magical power to the words “free market” government. It’s like you are so fascinated by the idea of buying and selling things passing laws – that you believe it solves all of mankind’s ills.”

            Gave ya a little help theya.

          3. Sure, try out your theory in simcity or simearth or whatever fantasy world you’ve created.

            All you have left is histrionics?

            It never worked. It never will work….and there is no such thing as a free market.

            Technically speaking, you are correct. There will always exist some, like yourself, who see coercion as an easier solution. The free market in practical terms is a economic system in which the government’s sole job is to make the cost of coercion prohibitive.

            If that government is democratic, then the electorate must be vigilant to keep that government in check. That means throwing out corrupt politicians, not re-electing them and making slimy deals with them for the benefit of corporations, unions, or the “social justice” cause of the week.

            It’s like you are so fascinated by the idea of buying and selling things – that you believe it solves all of mankind’s ills.

            I recognize that the exchange of goods and services, with or without money in between, has been the primary driving force behind the advancement of mankind. People working together for mutual benefit can achieve great things, do you not agree?

            What I do not understand is how lefties like yourself see voluntary associations like businesses as morally inferior to the coercive “association” known as government.

          4. It’s a fundamentalist religion called greed.

            The only person obsessed about money and its acquisition is you and your ilk. I don’t have envy for the rich nor pity for the poor. The rich are not better than me because they have more than me, and the poor are not inferior to me because they have less. My morality is not based around material wealth. Yours, however, is positively obsessed with it.

            There is only form of equality that matters, equality before the law, and every lefty government on the face of the Earth has made the destruction of that equality its primary goal.

            Nothing new. Just the name and the fact that Koch billions are financing the propaganda.

            I have never received a dime from the Koch brothers nor any of their businesses. I do not speak on their behalf. I am not interested in carrying water for anyone else’s agenda.

            That I support the rights of all people, including billionaire business men, does not constitute an endorsement of their every action, nor is it morally compromised because they gain some benefit from the exercise of those rights.

            I could just as easily say that your propaganda is being financed by Soros billions, but (I would hope) it is no more true or relevant than your slanderous accusations.

    5. You’re from Mass., just we really should take it easy on you. There’s something in the water there that just makes you stupid. Why just 5 months ago we had this little gem.

      “When you cover the uninsured, emergency room use goes up by a large magnitude,” said Amy Finkelstein, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who served as a lead investigator on the study, in an MIT press statement accompanying the study.

      There were no exceptions to the trend. “In no case were we able to find any subpopulations, or type of conditions, for which Medicaid caused a significant decrease in emergency department use,” said Finkelstein.

      Just stay down, ‘tard.

      1. Yeah, you should take it easy on the folks who
        1. Have the best educations in the USA
        2. Have among the very highest incomes
        3. Are the healthiest – by actual measurements like life expectancy and infant mortality
        4. Have the highest percentage of people actually paying and covered with health insurance.
        5. Overwhelming support universal health care.

        We wouldn’t want you to shove your idea places – like Texas, where 25% of the populace is not covered – in our face! That would be embarrassing. Same with telling us about the 3rd world infant mortality in many of those conservative states that trumpet the “free market”….

        Please don’t inform me about those facts. We can’t measure up.

        1. You forgot #6: biggest assholes on the fucking planet.

          And Boston single-handedly gave you the #1 spot for having the most cowardly boot-lickers.

          Just fucking kill yourself.

        2. 1) The best “educations” in the USA based on…? Well it’s not high school graduation rates. You’re top third, but plenty of states outperform you.
          2) Highest incomes? Well Maryland beats you by about 10% and you really need to correct for cost of living. Since you brought up Texas (unfortunately not my current state), Boston, MA has a 65% higher COL than Houston, TX and only pays about 7.5% more. Keep telling yourself you’re winning and tinkerbell will fly again!
          3) According to this you rank 4th overall.
          4) Because you had RomneyCare followed by BarryCare. Repeat after me: insurance is not healthcare. You also neglect to mention that MA has some of the most expensive health care in the country so that socialism am winning!
          5) Well THAT convinced me.

          1. Yeah, we know “libertarians” are great at cherry picking data……still:
            http://www.bloomberg.com/visua…..ted-states

            Other than DC, MA is #1
            EVERY state anywhere near the top is either blue or quite purple…you have to get down to Kansas before you get “conservative”.

            I know – all a coincidence…… 🙂
            You guys are funny. In school we used to have “backwards day” where we tried to make a goof of things one day a year.
            You guys do it full time…..good is bad and bad is good. High infant mortality, STD’s, divorce, unhappiness, obesity, etc…all GOOD THINGS brought about by conservative stances…while decent educations, health care, high incomes, lower disease, longer life, less energy use, etc – these are BAD BAD BIG GUBMENT things….

            I do enjoy your bantering because you are truly unable to make a reasonable reply – so you resort to nit picking, etc….

            Bottom line – liberal policies are creating more wealth, more jobs, more happiness, longer lives, etc – and you are loathe to admit it because it smashes the world view you cooked up on lewrockwell or infowars…

            1. craiginmass|6.19.14 @ 7:46PM|#
              “Yeah, we know “libertarians” are great at cherry picking data……still:
              http://www.bloomberg.com/visua…..ted-states”

              Oh, oh, look! Asshole picks cherries!

        3. craiginmass|6.18.14 @ 9:24PM|#
          “Yeah, you should take it easy on the folks who
          1. Have the best educations in the USA
          […]
          5. Overwhelming support universal health care.”

          #5 shows that #1 /= highest intelligence.

        4. Texas has almost 4 times the population of Mass, and they have more of the people who are likely to be unemployed, uncovered, and struggle in school. But they have a booming energy, construction, tech industry. Apples and oranges.

          Mass is mostly white and safely removed from a number of things that imperil lives in the West coast. You have lots of rich white people concentrated in a small area in which apple bobbing and chowder is popular. Big deal. There places like that in CA.

          Incredibly, people don’t want to move to places where you have to either buy insurance or pay into national healthcare system. That’s why the Mexicans aren’t flocking to Canada.

          What’s there to do in Canada and Mass? My sources tell me New England is sneaky racist and it’s tough to find decent boba places. The east coast is crap, I hear nothing but bad things about the weather and rude people. Ugh, crab cakes and chowder.

          1. The craig guy suffers from two typical brain-dead illusions:
            1) The voices in his head tell him the sponsor and the commenters here support repubs.
            His lack of reading comprehension is typical of a lefty.
            2) Those same voices tell him that a ‘free market’ is one that is run by the Kochs rather than idjits like himself.
            He is an imbecile, incapable of accepting that someone can simply hire a neighborhood kid to mow the lawn. To imbeciles like him, it is absolutely frightening that people may interact without government intervention.
            Infantile; moral cripples.

        5. Even if I accepted your 25% remark at face value, it couldn’t possibly be because people DON’T WANT TO BUY INSURANCE. And it DEFINITELY can’t be because Obamacare doubled the cost of shitty insurance.

          And no conservative state has “3rd world infant mortality rates”.

          Oh, and it’s easy to have high percentages of insured when you force people to buy the damn stuff at the point of a gun. Real enlightened and totally a symbol of freedom that.

          1. A few of your Red States have infant mortality over 10 – that’s more than DOUBLE Cuba.

            Right there with the Dominican Republic.
            Worse than Romania
            More dead than Sri Lanka

            You can’t be proud of that.

            As to Texas, never has so little been done with so much. As you note, they have the money to do just about anything – from their resource extraction and polluting industries. But instead they funnel the money to the top .1% of their citizens who then buy politicians from Texas to DC and make things better for them, while screwing the poor and middle class.

            As to their “problems” with folks that have brown skins – why do I suspect that, as usual, those folks are doing a lot of the hard work in that state? Or am I wrong? If I go to TX, will many of the hotel and service and construction workers be of Mexican or Central American descent?

            BTW, I just looked and my county is only 66% white, the remainder being hispanic and black – so much for your “lilly whites bobbing apples” ideal.

            1. Ya know, dipshit, since you lie constantly, unless you have cites, the presumption is you are lying.
              You always do; you’re a lying, brain-dead lefty.

  17. its amazing….. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.Fox81.com

    1. It’s amazing…start voting from home with an absentee ballot. Vote for progressives. Just a few hours per year. Receive up to $100 per day on an EBT card. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.craiginmass.com

      1. ^^^This made my day!

  18. I don’t know about this one. On one hand, the entire premise behind Obamacare is flawed. On the other, $16.5B doesn’t sound like a whole lot, especially when you consider that existing government spending on healthcare is already in the neighborhood of $1T per year. And it’s less than one half of one percent of the entire 2014 federal budget.

    Yeah, I know, death by a thousand cuts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.