^ As anyone here will tell you, I'm certainly no Carter defender. But in fairness to Carter, his new book, White House Diary, was taken from tapes he recorded at the time of his presidency.

It's not like Carter just up and decided to feel this way now. And I do think his thoughts during the time of his presidency represent an important artifact.

9/21/2010 8:17:38 PM

just got notice that my current monthly premium...as a single man, 29 years old and in great health, is going up 45%.

thanks, Obamacare.

9/21/2010 10:26:20 PM

that's interesting. i switched providers not too long ago and dropped my premiums by 20%

thanks, free market

9/21/2010 10:31:05 PM

^^ Who is your provider?

These people are thanking Obamacare

http://www.wcnc.com/news/health/Blue-Cross-NC-regulator-talk-about-premium-hike--103274434.html

Quote :

"North Carolina's largest health insurer will refund $155 million to more than 215,000 individual policyholders as a result of the Affordable Care Act that took effect earlier this year, the company said Monday."

Somehow, I feel I haven't used enough bold, italics, and rolleyes...or something.

9/21/2010 10:41:24 PM

I love how many insurance companies are using healthcare reform as an excuse to sneak in premium hikes and make more profit.

9/21/2010 11:23:37 PM

^ I love that you can just make stuff up and post it.

9/22/2010 12:15:17 AM

^^ Don't you dare act shocked. We told you this would happen. When everyone is required by law to purchase your products, you can charge whatever you want.

9/22/2010 1:03:40 AM

^they are required to provide insurance for people they normally wouldnt have given it to bc of risk. Then they are required to charge within a certain percentage of everyone else...thus bringing up everyone else's premium costs.

Dont you recall the whole "premium discrimination" BOO term the dems were using during all the debates. Even one got pissed that his premiums are going up bc he had health issues, saying it wasnt his fault.... well it damn sure isnt mine. This is why we need HSAs. imo

9/22/2010 9:39:35 AM

Quote :

"^^ Who is your provider? These people are thanking Obamacare"

Assurant.

I switched to them from BCBS 2 years ago for the same reason. Its a cycle and its annoying.

9/22/2010 10:48:29 AM

yes, it is annoying. i've had to switch providers 5 times over the last 3 years and it's a pita every time

but all large companies know that once they get you, you're less likely to switch simply b/c it is an inconvenience. that's why they spend so much money trying to attract your business in the first place

it's not unique to healthcare, and it has nothing to do with obamacare. you're still free to find another provider, you just don't want to

9/22/2010 11:49:21 AM

no I will.

but I have never had a premium go up almost 50%. that isnt normal.

Quote :

"it's not unique to healthcare, and it has nothing to do with obamacare."

yes it does.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html

health insurance providers are going to have to add tons of previously uninsured people with existing conditions to their rolls. they need $ to pay for them. they have to start collecting now.

simple logic.

9/22/2010 12:00:53 PM

one can speculate the insurance companies want to raise premiums to pay for more coverage

one can speculate the insurance companies want to raise premiums to make more money, using the healthcare bill as a scapegoat

i dunno which is true, but i'd speculate it's some of both

i suppose you could look at their financial statements to tell just how much more per person they are spending on coverage, spending on regulation compliance, spending on employee compensation, etc

9/22/2010 12:20:41 PM

don't know if this has been posted before:

http://www.crashcartproductions.com/

"The Vanishing Oath" is a good film, probably a must-see, for anyone interested in the current health care situation.

9/22/2010 12:27:15 PM

who is speculating? I posted an article about 2 weeks old from the Wall Street Journal with direct quotes from providers.

it is simple math. you are going to add A LOT of people to the insurance rolls who have never paid into the health insurance system. they have nothing "built up" in the system to cover their costs.

it is way too simplistic and extremely naive to call it "greed," especially with how regulated the insurance industry is and the fact that most of them are publicly held.

health insurance premiums for those of us buying them on our own are going to skyrocket in the next 10 years because of OBAMACARE. hopefully, our Congress will come to its senses and block funding for that abomination of a bill.

9/22/2010 12:32:44 PM

i mean for example, BCBS of maine was allowed a 23% premium increase and a 0.5% profit margin. All that money goes directly to healthcare providers. There the ones gouging the shit out of everyone and insurance provides a convenient shield and scapegoat to the real costs of care.

All health insurance in both public and private form should be completely eliminated if you want to actually control healthcare costs.

9/22/2010 12:37:06 PM

Quote :

"health insurance premiums for those of us buying them on our own are going to skyrocket in the next 10 years because of OBAMACARE. hopefully, our Congress will come to its senses and block funding for that abomination of a bill."

health insurance premiums are going to skyrocket with or without obamacare, though i don't disagree that premiums will likely increase at a faster rate. still, whatever. the end result is going to be rationing one way or another. either government will control and ration services or the insurance system will collapse under unsustainable pricing, leading to a rise in very, very high deductible plans.

Quote :

"insurance provides a convenient shield and scapegoat to the real costs of care."

right.

Quote :

"All that money goes directly to healthcare providers. There the ones gouging the shit out of everyone"

lol. keep telling yourself that. providers, especially physicians, are a convenient whipping boy ... until you need your appendix removed.

9/22/2010 12:45:53 PM

you can be grateful for the life-saving physician skills and services and still be shocked and outraged that it costs tens of thousands of dollars

i have no idea if that kind of cost is justified by the medical equipment, staff and other costs required to perform that kind of procedure, but you can't deny it sure does cost a hell of a lot. and somebody's got to pay for it - whether it's spread across a health insurance system, or isolated to whatever unlucky person needs it in a system where health insurance is optional

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : . ]

9/22/2010 12:54:22 PM

Quote :

"i mean for example, BCBS of maine was allowed a 23% premium increase and a 0.5% profit margin. All that money goes directly to healthcare providers. There the ones gouging the shit out of everyone and insurance provides a convenient shield and scapegoat to the real costs of care. All health insurance in both public and private form should be completely eliminated if you want to actually control healthcare costs."

you do realize that they have to predict and budget for their future costs, which will skyrocket due to the increased coverage of everyone and their conditions. unlike our government, they actually plan for expenses. they are passing along those future costs to us now.

9/22/2010 12:58:42 PM

why are you so quick to trust the reasons why the insurance companies want to charge you more money?

if my cable, phone, water, electricity providers wanted to charge me more b/c they were projecting for "future costs", i'd be a little hesitant to jump on board

9/22/2010 1:08:16 PM

Quote :

"why are you so quick to trust the reasons why the insurance companies want to charge you more money? "

good question. that is because the logic makes sense to me. today you have a lot of people walking around today without health insurance....for whatever reason...either cant afford it, they are lazy, they are irresponsible, or they have pre existing health conditions and are deemed "uninsurable" by the health care companies. tomorrow you are going to have a lot of those people demanding coverage who have never paid into the system. they will be a net loss, especially in the short term, to the health care providers.

those people would break down like this, IMO:

the ones who cannot afford it still will not be able to afford it. they will not buy a policy and will instead pay the $700 penalty to the IRS...chances are though, if they cannot afford insurance now, its a pretty good bet that their income levels are such that they get a refund every year anyway, and that $700 will just be deducted from that. this will continue on until they get sick...then they will go buy a policy that a health insurer will have to offer without the benefit of the person paying in for a time period prior to getting sick. that person will represent a net loss to the company.


I would wager that some or most of the lazy ones will go ahead and get a policy, not wanting to pay the $700. they would be a net gain to the company.

the irresponsible ones will do the same as the poor ones...why pay $200/month for a policy when I can just pay the $700/year, then get a policy if/when I get sick? they would be a net loss for the company.

the ones with pre existing conditions will immediately sign up for policies, because whatever they pay to the insurer will be dwarfed by the actual costs of their care. they would be a net loss for the company.



what part of that do you disagree with? what do you think I have wrong in my logic?

I will say that I agree that something needs to be done, but I am much more apt to argue for increased competition across state lines, tort reform and government incentives for companies who choose to insure those who cant afford policies at lower premiums. I would also say that I am for government subsidies for the insuring of children until the age of 18 but once you are an adult, you should be responsible for your own.

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 1:25 PM. Reason : clarification]

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ..]

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ...]

9/22/2010 1:24:36 PM

^if the govt mandated that cable companies have to provide HBO and pay per view movies to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.... and then my bill went up... I would understand.

Kinda like when gas prices go up, so does the cost of milk.

9/22/2010 1:28:09 PM

Quote :

"this will continue on until they get sick...then they will go buy a policy that a health insurer will have to offer without the benefit of the person paying in for a time period prior to getting sick. that person will represent a net loss to the company"

these uninsured people still got sick before health reform. if some uninsured person got cancer or needed an appendix out, they still got the treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. who was paying for it then?

Quote :

"increased competition across state lines, tort reform and government incentives for companies who choose to insure those who cant afford policies at lower premiums"

i totally agree with this. with the exception of the missing tort reform, is current health reform at odds with those strategies?

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 1:37 PM. Reason : . ]

9/22/2010 1:35:52 PM

Quote :

"lol. keep telling yourself that. providers, especially physicians, are a convenient whipping boy ... until you need your appendix removed. "

and they bill my insurance $20000. Insurance is the whipping boy, not providers. No one anywhere is talking about healthcare providers despite them being the only source of cost. They are all horribly run, horribly inefficient, and the money they rake in has no bearing on quality.

9/22/2010 1:48:17 PM

Quote :

"you can be grateful for the life-saving physician skills and services and still be shocked and outraged that it costs tens of thousands of dollars"

maybe, but that is a bit different than saying that providers are "gouging the shit out of everyone". most providers and hospitals have little to no ability to set fees. it is illegal for physicians to unionize or even share reimbursement rates. we can forget about gouging.

Quote :

"i have no idea if that kind of cost is justified by the medical equipment, staff and other costs required to perform that kind of procedure, but you can't deny it sure does cost a hell of a lot. and somebody's got to pay for it"

this is the problem. as a society, we've set the standard - perfect, best available medical care or i'll sue, at whatever cost is necessary. it shouldn't be surprising then, that maintaining that standard is expensive, from medical equipment and staff to other factors you didn't list - yet we still have widespread "shock and outrage". as a society/government/whatever - sure, we could theoretically establish even more severe artificial price controls than are already in place, but it wouldn't be long before there is no one qualified and willing to do the work at that price.

this is the major problem. as a society, we will get nowhere in this "health care" debate, until we own up and face facts. perfect, unlimited medicine for everyone will ultimately consume an infinite amount of resources. there is no way to give everyone everything they want or "need".

9/22/2010 1:55:00 PM

Quote :

"and they bill my insurance $20000"

ok. tell me what you think such a procedure should cost. next, tell me which part(s) of everything that goes along with making that procedure possible you'd be willing to give up to make it cost that amount.

9/22/2010 1:59:17 PM

If ObamaCare is so great, why are congressional Democrats fleeing from it? Let me guess: mean old Republicans again?

Democrats Flee as Obama Speaks
September 22, 2010

Quote :

"As President Obama delivers yet another speech on his healthcare debacle-this one on the 6 month anniversary of the bill's passage- he may notice some of the people who won't be clapping: members of his own party. Like aristocrats aboard a sinking steamship, Congressional Democrats are madly scrambling for whatever life vests they can find."

Quote :

"The Democrats are hoping that the American public develops amnesia regarding how Obamacare came to be and about who was responsible for this massive tax program posing as healthcare reform. Unless some brilliant hacker has the ability to surreptitiously erase all records of the past 18 months from videotape and internet, then res ipsa loquitur, the facts speak for themselves. Nevertheless, as the fall election approaches Democrats are doing their best to run away from Obamacare. They distance themselves from it by pretending that they either do not agree with it now or have voted against it. They run advertisements on TV and don't even mention that they are Democrats, as if ashamed to be associated with them. They have been instructed not to mention healthcare reform during their campaigns which is odd since this was the only 'achievement' during the first 2 years of the Obama regime. Even Nancy Pelosi has granted 'permission' to her minions running for Congressional seats to say whatever they must, even to 'throw her under the bus,' if it means that they might be able to win a seat."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/22/democrats_flee_as_obama_speaks_107264.html

9/22/2010 2:08:34 PM

^^there is very little research done on what procedures should cost. They just pick the highest number they can bill insurance for.

I posted one bit of research earlier in the thread done by some university. They picked a few common procedures and ilnesses (some heart related surgery and pnumonia iirc) and they found in places with very low to no insurance coverage, prices for the surgery were orders of magnitude cheaper than places with the best insurance. The cheapest place was about $1500(billed to patient) and the most expensive was like $80,000(billed to insurance). The more expensive hospital had a 1% better survival rate. In the case of pnumonia, the lower cost hospitals provided better quality care at lower prices.

Thats where we need to be looking. I work in the healthcare industry as a service provider to hospitals and other care providers and every single one of them is filled to the brim with dumb shit. Like right now we have a hospital where 30% of their critical lab values (labs that found problems) dont ever make it back to the requesting doc or the patient. Its obscene and just one example.


[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 2:16 PM. Reason : j]

9/22/2010 2:15:46 PM

Quote :

"these uninsured people still got sick before health reform. if some uninsured person got cancer or needed an appendix out, they still got the treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. who was paying for it then?"

they received emergency treatment, which the collective "we" payed for. then they are discharged or they receive charity of some sort. hospitals dont keep people in their beds who cant pay. they will treat to a point, but not necessarily until .the person is 'cured.'

Quote :

"i totally agree with this. with the exception of the missing tort reform, is current health reform at odds with those strategies? "

competition across state lines. my whole beef with this health reform is that the "easy" things...like the tort and competition...where not tried first. Obama obsessed about this all encompassing reform which will ultimately make us worse off, IMO.

Quote :

"this is the problem. as a society, we've set the standard - perfect, best available medical care or i'll sue, at whatever cost is necessary. it shouldn't be surprising then, that maintaining that standard is expensive, from medical equipment and staff to other factors you didn't list - yet we still have widespread "shock and outrage". as a society/government/whatever - sure, we could theoretically establish even more severe artificial price controls than are already in place, but it wouldn't be long before there is no one qualified and willing to do the work at that price. this is the major problem. as a society, we will get nowhere in this "health care" debate, until we own up and face facts. perfect, unlimited medicine for everyone will ultimately consume an infinite amount of resources. there is no way to give everyone everything they want or "need"."

this is well put.

9/22/2010 3:01:49 PM

why wasn't torm reform part of the bill? i don't remember and 10 seconds on google didn't help

9/22/2010 3:10:40 PM

^^^ The quote goes something like: For every complex problem, there is a solution which is simple, neat, and wrong.

If you had an easy way to streamline practices and cut waste while still abiding by the ever-increasing documentation dances, you wouldn't be posting on TWW, you'd be chilling in your new mansion on your new private island. The fact that patients who don't require the administrative burden of insurance can be charged less should not be surprising. I will say that I think physician's should be able to make public their rates for each and every procedure to allow for comparison "shopping", but I don't know if the well-insured population would care - they aren't paying the lion's share, if anything they would probably want to "get their money's worth".

From your post, I'm not sure you understand how providers are reimbursed, especially by insurance. Every payment for every procedure is spelled out in a negotiated contract. Why would an individual NOT negotiate for the highest possible rate for his or her services? Are you instead saying that the main impetus for increasing health care costs is providers fraudulently billing for services which were not provided?

[Edited on September 22, 2010 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2010 3:11:05 PM

Quote :

"why wasn't torm reform part of the bill? i don't remember and 10 seconds on google didn't help"

the simple answer. democrats. trial lawyer lobby. someone will come on here and give some figures about how malpractice costs are only a small percentage of overall health care spending anyway. to which i'd say 1) no. there is no good way to measure such things. 2) a few percentage of $texas is still $florida or something

9/22/2010 3:15:09 PM

Quote :

"From your post, I'm not sure you understand how providers are reimbursed, especially by insurance. Every payment for every procedure is spelled out in a negotiated contract. Why would an individual NOT negotiate for the highest possible rate for his or her services? Are you instead saying that the main impetus for increasing health care costs is providers fraudulently billing for services which were not provided? "

what im saying is that negotiating the costs of procedures should happen between provider and patient. Right now the providers have a massive advatange over the insurance companies because people expect full coverage from the insurance company and do care about the costs. If patients were paying for their own care theres no way they'd be willing to pay what providers demand.

What providers charge is not what patients would be willing to pay without insurance. Insurance has created a wasteful middleman that care providers are willing to take advantage of.

We use insurance to cover all costs which is so fucking dumb. Compare it to any other insurance industry, like dental or auto. Auto insurance jacks up rates on dangerous drivers, and drecreases them for safe drivers. No one expects insurance to pay for accidents that you cause. No one expects insurance to pay for maintenance. Dental insurance is similar. Most only cover preventitive care completely and make you pay part of your fuck ups (cavities/crowns/etc...).

In both cases its on the consumer if they fuck up. Thats not the case with healthcare insurance. In addition, we use healthcare insurance to handle things like cancer or genetic diseases which is so goddamn stupid.

9/22/2010 5:15:18 PM

Quote :

"If patients were paying for their own care theres no way they'd be willing to pay what providers demand."

demand for health care services, especially emergent services, is extremely inelastic. so no, you're wrong.

Quote :

"what im saying is that negotiating the costs of procedures should happen between provider and patient. Right now the providers have a massive advatange over the insurance companies because people expect full coverage from the insurance company"

this would work in the case of patients who have no health insurance choosing a primary care provider who accepts no insurance ... and that's about it. your implication that providers have the advantage over insurance companies is backwards. most states have two or three major insurers. the insurers have all the information, they are exempt from laws forbidding sharing of information a la cartels. on the other hand, the physician, by law, has almost no information. the "negotiations" are a take it or leave it scenario. actually, the insurer-negotiated rates are less than what a provider would normally accept. this should be simple to understand - the provider accepts less in return for a more stable customer base.

Quote :

" What providers charge is not what patients would be willing to pay without insurance. Insurance has created a wasteful middleman that care providers are willing to take advantage of."

you might be kind of right if we replace "willing" with "able". but again, i think you over-estimate the margin of most practices. there is, of course, also a certain price at which the provider is not able to earn any money, and is therefore unwilling to provide the service.

9/22/2010 7:02:37 PM

Quote :

"No one anywhere is talking about healthcare providers despite them being the only source of cost."

Really? really... Really? The "only source of cost?" really?

Quote :

"why wasn't torm reform part of the bill?"

because trial lawyers are a major donator to the Democratic party.

Quote :

"what im saying is that negotiating the costs of procedures should happen between provider and patient."

Many states have made just such a thing impossible, even illegal. And part of the problem is that the doctor must charge a high price because he is only getting a fraction of that charge from the insurance company. Look at your EOBs sometime. Notice how the doctor often bills 200 bux for something and is only paid 40 or 50 bux. What do you think would happen if the doctor only asked for 40 bux? You guessed it, he'd get 10 bux.
Now, here's the kicker: what happens if the doctor charges 40 bux for cash payers but 200 bux for insurance payers? He gets hit with a fucking lawsuit by the insurance company. So guess what he does? He just puts the price at 200 and says "to hell with it." So no, it's not a case of doctors "gouging" people.

Quote :

"Thats not the case with healthcare insurance."

Are you saying it should be that way? Are you saying that those who are sicker should pay higher rates?

9/22/2010 8:27:33 PM

Quote :

"Munger, who is a critic of President Barack Obama's economic policies and once said he is displaying an "anti-capitalist bias," said increasing insurance costs and unemployment will go hand-in-hand. "If a company does offer health insurance to workers, and the cost increases, the price of new workers is raised dramatically," Munger said. "So, if you wanted to know what is one of the biggest causes of stubbornly high unemployment, the answer is: Obamacare. Businesses can't afford health care, and so they can't afford to hire new workers. "The reason unemployment is high is not a lack of investment. It's the new health care law.""

http://www.legalnewsline.com/spotlight/228807-ags-may-be-left-to-fight-rising-health-care-costs

This sounds about right to me. Anyone else disagree?

9/23/2010 1:34:18 AM

^ Eh, I'm sure the increased costs aren't helping any, but I seriously doubt that health insurance is "one of the biggest causes of stubbornly high unemployment"

9/23/2010 8:04:53 AM

I am not a fan of congress' health-care reform, but I'm sure unemployment would be the same with or without it.

9/23/2010 8:45:53 AM

businesses couldn't afford health care before the health reform bill. remember how premiums have been going on by double digits for most of the last decade?

9/23/2010 9:33:31 AM

there are a lot of businesses in my area that dont provide health insurance. We pay a lower hourly wage yet offer health insurance. My stepfather has recently dropped the health plan for their business as it has gotten too expensive to keep, but give their employees a fixed amount each month to help them buy their own.

Forcing businesses to pay for health insurance increases costs of employment. Its that simple. When business is down you will tend to do more with what you have to keep your fixed costs down. In some businesses the only way to do this is to let go of employees.

9/23/2010 10:07:27 AM

yeah but like you said, if businesses don't provide health insurance, they have to increase salary compensation to keep overall compensation competitive enough to retain and attract employees. so it's not really an increase in the cost of employment

a health system where health insurance is primarily provided by an employer definitely has some downsides, but hey, that system also has been in place long long before current health reform came onto the scene. you can't just eliminate that segment of the system

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2010 10:15:18 AM

Raise your hand if you didn't see this one coming from a mile away:

Quote :

"Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions. ... Insurers said they were acting because the new federal requirement could create huge and unexpected costs for covering children. They said the rule might prompt parents to buy policies only after their kids became sick, producing a glut of ill youngsters to insure. As a result, they said, many companies would flee the marketplace, leaving behind a handful to shoulder a huge financial burden. "

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921,0,799167.story

Well I suppose if you're in congress, you really couldn't have seen this coming, what with your head being stuck so far up your ass:

Quote :

"The moves prompted outrage from some Democrats, who noted that insurers, through their trade association, pledged to comply with the rules in March when the law passed. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. Calif.) said, "Earlier this year, the companies pledged to cover children with pre-existing conditions – in keeping with the spirit of reform that requires they no longer drop coverage for these children. Now, some companies are backtracking on writing new policies, potentially leaving many children without the health insurance they desperately need." Rep. Pete Stark (D. Calif.) said, "The insurance industry has once again shown their reckless disregard for the well-being of consumers, which is why we need the health reform law that holds them accountable.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506311917901960.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

9/23/2010 2:14:14 PM

Quote :

"so it's not really an increase in the cost of employment "

You might have misunderstood me. Businesses who currently DONT pay for health insurance may or may not pay more per hour. However being forced to provide health insurance WILL increase the cost of employment. There is a floor to what you can pay.

THe reason my stepdad did this with his practice was the rising costs. He and most of his staff are older so the health insurance costs were rising a ton every year. THis way the practice can limit/predict what its costs will be. He doesnt have to give them any more money but he feels its the right thing to do to help them get their own ins plans.

^Clinton did that shit with vaccines. Basically forcing drug companies to give away their vaccines for little to no profit... the outcome was that we now have to import most of our vaccines, as the US companies stopped producing them.

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2010 2:28:44 PM

Quote :

"ust got notice that my current monthly premium...as a single man, 29 years old and in great health, is going up 45%."

Quote :

"no I will. but I have never had a premium go up almost 50%. that isnt normal. "

Just speaking from experience...Your insurance goes up drastically when you hit 30. It was probably a combination of increasing rates across the board as well as your particular age situation that led to such a huge increase. I, too, fled to a different company when this happened to me.

9/23/2010 3:30:28 PM

The corporate state roles on. Now thanks to Obama and the new Healthcare law, thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald’s (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), can enjoy the profits that come from a competitive advantage over their competitors which are too small to get a waiver from Obama. As government grows, corporate profits grow.

10/8/2010 2:31:13 AM

The disturbing thing is that these waivers are doled out on a case-by-case basis, which means that ultimately, the companies with the most power and influence will be the ones allowed to "opt out." But hey, at least we passed something, right?

10/8/2010 11:12:13 AM

hey hey hey - we won't have any of that realism here. this is the era of obama!

10/8/2010 7:04:22 PM

THe last three posts are dead on. This waiver stuff is pretty scary. Too much power in one individual. imo

10/8/2010 9:54:06 PM

Quote :

"For a federal government to spend $3.5 trillion per year and still find itself with this health care crisis is so much more inexcusable than arguing that “society is so rich that we should trade off some efficiency for some equity.” What the heck are we doing with $3.5 trillion (or $6 trillion if you add all levels of government)? The US government (all levels) has 20% more resources itself than the largest economy in the world does yet it cannot take care of health care for the poor and chronically infirm? Where on the list of priorities must this really be? Is it ahead of mohair subsidies, sugar subsidies, windmill subsidies, funding for education schools, and so on? What kind of bizarre world am I living in? And I am being asked to sacrifice a little more just to see that we’ll get it right this time?"

http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2010/11/02/the-political-economy-of-health-care/

11/2/2010 3:19:22 PM

That statement really isn't against healthcare reform.

11/2/2010 5:40:34 PM

WOOPS! AARP raising insurance premiums for its employees...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=1&ved=0CC8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Fhealth%2F2010%2F11%2F05%2Faarp-raises-insurance-costs-for-employees%2F&rct=j&q=aarp%20insurance&ei=CHDUTMijKML6lwfquciCBQ&usg=AFQjCNExew3P-mIx-4Qs27txkT4iKk4b9w&sig2=-b8IMOKY-nPWMFxAL4OyPA&cad=rja

thx, ObamaCare, for lowering our rates!

11/5/2010 4:59:58 PM