Obamacare cost...

[ERCougar]

The few dominant ones here just undercut each other a little bit. So, companies go back and forth between a few larger insurance providers much of the time, switching often, making people change medical providers, changing plans every few years.

Opening it up accross state lines would increase the competition and lower prices.

Two years ago, I switched from Select Care (an IHC offering--you know this, but for others' benefit) to Humana, and saved about $75/month in premiums. I'd call that more than just "undercutting each other a little bit" (although I'm not sure how you define "a little bit", nor am I sure how the situation you just described doesn't apply to hundreds of other industries that you'd likely call "competition" without any hesitation).

The problem with competition has far more to do with tying your insurance choice to your job than it does to state lines, IMO.

[Moliere]

Do people really believe that the free market would work if insurance companies didn't have to cover pre-existing conditions? You realize that under the free market these people would be dropped and wouldn't be covered. You realize that without this provision we are all one pre existing condition from bankruptcy and poverty, at no fault of our own.

[old_gregg]

This is just another form of welfare. And while I understand the need to care for those who can't provide for themselves, I really think programs like this expand that pool instead of decrease it. The ultimate goal in helping people should be to propel them to self-sufficiency, so they can provide for themselves. Giving people something for free will usually do the opposite of what is intended, especially when the government is involved because of the lack of personal resposibility attached.

welfare is not a dirty word. i use $500 worth of insulin and test strips per month at retail prices. don't patronize someone who is spending 10% of the median household income on something that keeps them alive. it's not like someone can decide to be self-sufficient, pick themselves up and quit having type 1 diabetes.

you know what's irresponsible? as a society making someone choose between paying for their insulin and affording food.

[FMCoug]

Listening to Left, Right, and Center this morning was a nice break from the doom and gloom on here regarding Obamacare. While ACA is hardly perfect, there are two very good things it will do:
1) Divorce health insurance from employment. This is an absurd feature of our health plan. Didn't do this perfectly, and yes, there are problems (requiring small businesses to insure employees is just stupid), but for the first time ever, Americans can enter an insurance pool without being employed.
2) Eliminate pre-existing conditions from insurance pools. I think this is a great thing. Every one of us is a diagnosis from being uninsurable.

I agree with both of your points here. I have personal experience with both of these. When I left the world of big employer sponsored group policies, I basically became uninsurable. I am on Utah HIP now at exporbitant prices. Fortunately I can afford to pay. Most could not.

I think the ship has sailed on the issue as to whether or not medical care should be part of the safety net. If you have an expectation that you can pick up the phone and call 911 and be saved from a heart attack, you believe in some form of socialized medicine.

[il Padrino Ute]

How does that affect the uninsurable patient again? No one WANTS to insure them.

I've no problem telling insurance companies they can't deny anyone with preexisting conditions. The insurance will cost more, but allowing the companies to sell across state lines will drive down the cost a bit.

[Uncle Ted]

Do people really believe that the free market would work if insurance companies didn't have to cover pre-existing conditions? You realize that under the free market these people would be dropped and wouldn't be covered. You realize that without this provision we are all one pre existing condition from bankruptcy and poverty, at no fault of our own.

To be a free market the government just needs to set the rules and not provide the solution. For example, German health insurance is completely private (there is nothing like medicare)...

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...51&postcount=4

And none of the private health insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage based on a pre-existing conditions. The government created the rules so it is fair for everyone and the market creates the price. Those that can't afford the premiums (and all children) are given help from the government.

[fusnik]

I've no problem telling insurance companies they can't deny anyone with preexisting conditions. The insurance will cost more, but allowing the companies to sell across state lines will drive down the cost a bit.

Ha.

I don't think you know what a 'free market' is.

[doctorcoug]

By law only high deductable plans are allowed to be tied to HSAs. That's the answer to doctorcoug's question about why someone would choose an FSA over an HSA - they choose it because legally the HSA is not available to them.

Most employees can chose the ppo with the fsa or the hdp with the hsa, every year.

via a galaxy s3 far far away

[Uncle Ted]

Hmm... I am starting to think it might be a good time to hedge on pharmaceutical stocks:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...yist-industry1

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job

Few people embody the corporatist revolving door greasing Washington as purely as Elizabeth Fowler

When the legislation that became known as "Obamacare" was first drafted, the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted it. As Politico put it at the time: "If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer."

[...]

Now, as Politico's "Influence" column briefly noted on Tuesday, Fowler is once again passing through the deeply corrupting revolving door as she leaves the Obama administration to return to the loving and lucrative arms of the private health care industry:


"Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading 'global health policy' at Johnson & Johnson's government affairs and policy group."

The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters - and most lavish beneficiaries - of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this.

[...]

[Katy Lied]

The few dominant ones here just undercut each other a little bit. So, companies go back and forth between a few larger insurance providers much of the time, switching often, making people change medical providers, changing plans every few years.

Opening it up accross state lines would increase the competition and lower prices.

Hey, that's what my company does. Every year, a new insurance company. Such a bother. Same doctors, just different insurance cos.

[byu71]

Hmm... I am starting to think it might be a good time to hedge on pharmaceutical stocks:

My pharma ETF's haven't done to bad under Obama and you may be right they can go higher. I know the XPH pulled back a bit from Sept. highs, but seems to be moving again.

Note: I don't know shit when it comes to investing so my comments in no way reflect any type of recommendation.

[Uncle Ted]

Hey, that's what my company does. Every year, a new insurance company. Such a bother. Same doctors, just different insurance cos.

I am guessing you will see some more of this in the upcoming years... except maybe not the same doctors.

[Mormon Red Death]

#2 will bring a large increase in everyone's premiums.

Here's the start of this increase.

[pellegrino]

Here's the start of this increase.

Thanks Nancy!
[YOUTUBE]KoE1R-xH5To[/YOUTUBE]

[SCcoug]

Thanks Nancy!
[YOUTUBE]KoE1R-xH5To[/YOUTUBE]

Yeah. 18 Democratic Senators to Harry Reid: "Hey we just found out about the medical device tax was in that bill we voted for but never read; that will have an adverse effect on our states can we do something about that?"

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...er12102012.pdf