Obamacare cost...

[Omaha 680]

When's the next Krugman regurgitation from you? It's been a few days. The column from the self-described progressive activist tided you over I guess. I'm glad we have a gatekeeper like you to decide what is and isn't partisan tripe.

Anyway, here's a tragic anecdote from the Wall Street Journal -- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

Apparently she had a policy on the individual market and it's being cancelled. The "garbage/bad apple" policy (which has now cancelled due to the benevolence of Obamacare) allowed her to be treated at Stanford for her gallbladder cancer and UCSD would just take care of the emergency stuff. These wonderful new "quality, low-cost" policies now available to her in California are forcing her to choose between Stanford or UCSD. I'm wondering if you could reference the point you were making last week about Obamacare just getting rid of shitty policies that weren't helping people anyway and try to send it her way. She could use some reassurance right now.

The Wall Street Journal is political pornography.

[VirginiaCougar]

When's the next Krugman regurgitation from you? It's been a few days. The column from the self-described progressive activist tided you over I guess. I'm glad we have a gatekeeper like you to decide what is and isn't partisan tripe.

Anyway, here's a tragic anecdote from the Wall Street Journal -- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

Apparently she had a policy on the individual market and it's being cancelled. The "garbage/bad apple" policy (which has now cancelled due to the benevolence of Obamacare) allowed her to be treated at Stanford for her gallbladder cancer and UCSD would just take care of the emergency stuff. These wonderful new "quality, low-cost" policies now available to her in California are forcing her to choose between Stanford or UCSD. I'm wondering if you could reference the point you were making last week about Obamacare just getting rid of shitty policies that weren't helping people anyway and try to send it her way. She could use some reassurance right now.

Sad story. Anecdotal but no less real for her. I could share a deeply personal story of how the American Health Care system killed my father early (in his early 60s) and bankrupted him in the process, but I suspect it best not to. I feel for that woman. No change is a good change in her situation. If you look carefully, however - these changes weren't forced specifically by ACA. Again, I find it interesting that I have to speak up for a bill that I find problematic - its just that what is being said often isn't true as the politicization of the next election cycle kicks in (did it ever end??).

As she notes in her Op-Ed, it was her insurance company United Healthcare that chose to leave the California market - they weren't forced to. They could have done this for any number of reasons, perhaps they simply weren't making enough profits because of the number of cancer patients they had in California. Who knows, but ACA didn't directly force them to do that. They most certainly could have stayed if they wished. Prior to ACA, they could have also cancelled her for any number of reasons as those costs accumulated.

Even the local UCSD hospital chose to accept only one insurance company - an exclusive deal with Anthem. Nothing in ACA demands that. Again, I do really feel for this woman and the challenges she is facing. I've dealt with all that paperwork for my father and now see it happening to an uncle. However, it is also true that for years I've been forced to go to a crappy hospital in our area due to an exclusive deal and not the one I would prefer if I needed tests or emergency care for myself or my family. I understand her concerns, they have been part/problem of the US health care system for many, many years. I wish her good health and all the best as she faces that difficult challenge.

ACA does impose change, not all of it good. For some of the changes, time will tell. But much of what is blamed on it is really coming from actors in the system seeking to take advantage of the changes to maximize profits, etc. Not directly forced by ACA. If it makes you feel better to simply compare me to Krugman (whom I usually disagree with), because that simplifies the complexity of these issues into a nice and neat dichotomous, black and white reality - not much I can do about that. I will reiterate that if I were king of the world, I would have sought a very different approach to the serious problems associated with the Health Care system in the US.

[Uncle Ted]

Sad story. Anecdotal but no less real for her. I could share a deeply personal story of how the American Health Care system killed my father early (in his early 60s) and bankrupted him in the process, but I suspect it best not to. I feel for that woman. No change is a good change in her situation. If you look carefully, however - these changes weren't forced specifically by ACA. Again, I find it interesting that I have to speak up for a bill that I find problematic - its just that what is being said often isn't true as the politicization of the next election cycle kicks in (did it ever end??).

As she notes in her Op-Ed, it was her insurance company United Healthcare that chose to leave the California market - they weren't forced to. They could have done this for any number of reasons, perhaps they simply weren't making enough profits because of the number of cancer patients they had in California. Who knows, but ACA didn't directly force them to do that. They most certainly could have stayed if they wished. Prior to ACA, they could have also cancelled her for any number of reasons as those costs accumulated.

Even the local UCSD hospital chose to accept only one insurance company - an exclusive deal with Anthem. Nothing in ACA demands that. Again, I do really feel for this woman and the challenges she is facing. I've dealt with all that paperwork for my father and now see it happening to an uncle. However, it is also true that for years I've been forced to go to a crappy hospital in our area due to an exclusive deal and not the one I would prefer if I needed tests or emergency care for myself or my family. I understand her concerns, they have been part/problem of the US health care system for many, many years. I wish her good health and all the best as she faces that difficult challenge.

ACA does impose change, not all of it good. For some of the changes, time will tell. But much of what is blamed on it is really coming from actors in the system seeking to take advantage of the changes to maximize profits, etc. Not directly forced by ACA. If it makes you feel better to simply compare me to Krugman (whom I usually disagree with), because that simplifies the complexity of these issues into a nice and neat dichotomous, black and white reality - not much I can do about that. I will reiterate that if I were king of the world, I would have sought a very different approach to the serious problems associated with the Health Care system in the US.

I thought, from the "sales pitch" we were given, that Obamacare was going to expand options... not reduce them:

For many, Obama's promise of health care choice does not ring true

In her grilling on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reiterated a frequent assertion in the Obamacare sales pitch --- consumers have options when shopping for insurance plans on the health care exchanges.


"The 15% of our neighbors and friends who are uninsured have affordable new options in a competitive market," Sebelius said in her testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.


But a CNN analysis found that consumer options vary significantly from state to state, and many Americans are discovering that they have very few options.
[...]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/politi...verage-varies/

Oh, wait, this must be the answer:

Rural areas suffer; not profitable


Rural areas are, on the whole, less desirable to insurance companies because they offer a smaller pool of potential customers. It is also more difficult for insurance companies to make a profit in rural counties because there are fewer health care providers and lack of competition allows regional hospitals to charge more for services.

[...]

California must be one of those rural areas so that is why United Healthcare (a Fortune 500 company) is pulling out of the state.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Sad story. Anecdotal but no less real for her. I could share a deeply personal story of how the American Health Care system killed my father early (in his early 60s) and bankrupted him in the process, but I suspect it best not to. I feel for that woman. No change is a good change in her situation. If you look carefully, however - these changes weren't forced specifically by ACA. Again, I find it interesting that I have to speak up for a bill that I find problematic - its just that what is being said often isn't true as the politicization of the next election cycle kicks in (did it ever end??).

As she notes in her Op-Ed, it was her insurance company United Healthcare that chose to leave the California market - they weren't forced to. They could have done this for any number of reasons, perhaps they simply weren't making enough profits because of the number of cancer patients they had in California. Who knows, but ACA didn't directly force them to do that. They most certainly could have stayed if they wished. Prior to ACA, they could have also cancelled her for any number of reasons as those costs accumulated.

Even the local UCSD hospital chose to accept only one insurance company - an exclusive deal with Anthem. Nothing in ACA demands that. Again, I do really feel for this woman and the challenges she is facing. I've dealt with all that paperwork for my father and now see it happening to an uncle. However, it is also true that for years I've been forced to go to a crappy hospital in our area due to an exclusive deal and not the one I would prefer if I needed tests or emergency care for myself or my family. I understand her concerns, they have been part/problem of the US health care system for many, many years. I wish her good health and all the best as she faces that difficult challenge.

ACA does impose change, not all of it good. For some of the changes, time will tell. But much of what is blamed on it is really coming from actors in the system seeking to take advantage of the changes to maximize profits, etc. Not directly forced by ACA. If it makes you feel better to simply compare me to Krugman (whom I usually disagree with), because that simplifies the complexity of these issues into a nice and neat dichotomous, black and white reality - not much I can do about that. I will reiterate that if I were king of the world, I would have sought a very different approach to the serious problems associated with the Health Care system in the US.

It's ridiculous to say the ACA didn't cause United to leave California. You're grasping at straws.

It's also a mere coincidence that Aetna also abandoned the individual market in California the same year.

Companies choose to leave when they're worried about their profits, and those two left California because they're scared shitless (for good reason) at what's going to happen to the individual market over the course of the next year. If they don't turn a profit then they don't stay in business. That's why United "chose" to leave California. If you're going to look past a rather large externality like Obamacare and say that's not a factor, then no one here should take you seriously on this topic.

[VirginiaCougar]

It's ridiculous to say the ACA didn't cause United to leave California. You're grasping at straws.

It's also a mere coincidence that Aetna also abandoned the individual market in California the same year.

Companies choose to leave when they're worried about their profits, and those two left California because they're scared shitless (for good reason) at what's going to happen to the individual market over the course of the next year. If they don't turn a profit then they don't stay in business. That's why United "chose" to leave California. If you're going to look past a rather large externality like Obamacare and say that's not a factor, then no one here should take you seriously on this topic.

Odd, you want to argue I shouldn't be taken seriously on ACA because I didn't conform to your view. Yet, when you look at it, for the most part you are agreeing with my post here.



Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Goatnapper'96]

Odd, you want to argue I shouldn't be taken seriously on ACA because I didn't conform to your view. Yet, when you look at it, for the most part you are agreeing with my post here.



Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

See, the Professor got you again. Score one for the Socratic method! Either that or he is a Sicilian.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This column from Paul Krugman on September 8 is hilarious in hindsight:

So, another week, another denunciation of Obamacare. Who cares? But Mr. Barrasso’s remarks were actually interesting, although not in the way he intended. You see, all the recent news on health costs has been good. So Mr. Barrasso is predicting sticker shock precisely when serious fears of such a shock are fading fast. Why would he do that?

I'm not, to say the least, a regular reader of Paul Krugman. But it's funny to see Cali's talking points imbedded in this column -- attributing the decreasing rate of increase to Obamacare even though it started in 2003, saying that premiums are decreasing because a survey said they were coming in lower than the CBO's predictions (in other words, premiums still increased but just not as much as the CBO predicted), etc.

I wonder what Krugman thinks about that "wonk gap" when the White House can't produce a working website after 3 and a half years. Either "wonk gap" = incompetence or wonk gap means having wonderful ideas that translate well to your dinner friends but don't work in reality. Additionally, I wonder what his opinion is on the fact that one of the reasons the website doesn't work is because they're trying to gather everyone's information beforehand to avoid the premium sticker shock. The website wants to root out each and every subsidy available in order to piss off the fewest people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/op...gap.html?_r=1&

[Katy Lied]

Either that or he is a Sicilian.

I've yet to read a post from VC where he advises us to never get involved in a land war in Asia.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Are the Federal Regs political pornography too? This is from June 17, 2010. The mid-range estimate from Obama's own reg is that around 50% of all employer group plans will be killed off (i.e. not grandfathered) under Obamacare. This is the reason why they put off the employer mandate. If all of Obamacare had been implemented as previously planned, around 50% of the privately insured people in this country would have been dropped all at once. So, I guess 50% of the people on group plans have "bad apple" insurance, eh?

metadc52697_m_0024234553.med_res.jpg

[All-American]

I've never read a post from VC where he advises us to never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Besides, death isn't on the line. Fire away.

[VirginiaCougar]

I've never read a post from VC where he advises us to never get involved in a land war in Asia.

I often wonder if many of those so bitter about anything Obama does will eventually say,

"You know, it’s very strange. I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it’s over, I don’t know what to do with the rest of my life."

[VirginiaCougar]

Are the Federal Regs political pornography too? This is from June 17, 2010. The mid-range estimate from Obama's own reg is that around 50% of all employer group plans will be killed off (i.e. not grandfathered) under Obamacare. This is the reason why they put off the employer mandate. If all of Obamacare had been implemented as previously planned, around 50% of the privately insured people in this country would have been dropped all at once. So, I guess 50% of the people on group plans have "bad apple" insurance, eh?

[ATTACH]3347[/ATTACH]

Or at least serious gaps in coverage. Really says something, doesn't it? Interesting reading, by the way.

[byu71]

I often wonder if many of those so bitter about anything Obama does will eventually say,

"You know, it’s very strange. I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it’s over, I don’t know what to do with the rest of my life."

You believe politicians are in the revenge business as opposed to they are very committed to their way of thinking? I have often thought Obama's policies were about some kind of misguided revenge against something. Don't know specifically what.

I thought I am probably the lone ranger in thinking that, but it is nice to know someone of your intellect can also see that as a possibility.

[VirginiaCougar]

You believe politicians are in the revenge business as opposed to they are very committed to their way of thinking? I have often thought Obama's policies were about some kind of misguided revenge against something. Don't know specifically what.

I thought I am probably the lone ranger in thinking that, but it is nice to know someone of your intellect can also see that as a possibility.

I wasn't thinking specifically of politicians, they usually have their own self-interested motivations. I was thinking of others who engage in the political process. However, perhaps that is the case for some. To continue the theme, wouldn't it be nice of both extreme's said something to the effect of,

"You mean you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?"

[byu71]

I wasn't thinking specifically of politicians, they usually have their own self-interested motivations. I was thinking of others who engage in the political process. However, perhaps that is the case for some. To continue the theme, wouldn't it be nice of both extreme's said something to the effect of,

"You mean you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?"

I like that. I would like to see them try to compromise a bit. For instance when the dems passed Obamacare I would have like them to agree to shove only 55% of what they wanted to do down everyone's throat. Throw a bone to the 45% that didn't vote for them.

Same goes for the ultra righties. They ought to philabuster only 20% of what the dems propose.