Durbin: Of course premiums will still go up with ObamaCare
posted at 12:55 pm on March 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Not exactly a shocker, but Dick Durbin gives the nuanced explanation that they’re looking to slow down the rate of increases, not stop increases altogether. Unfortunately, that misrepresents what the CBO has already said about premiums under ObamaCare — and ignores what has already happened to premiums without it:
The truth is that premiums have gone up in part because of government intervention, not despite of it. Further government intervention will make the problem worse — and the CBO agreed in November. While some would see a price decrease, it would only be those who don’t currently have insurance:
Individual insurance premiums would increase by an average of 10 percent or more, according to an analysis of the Senate healthcare bill.
The long-awaited report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) also concluded that subsidies provided by the legislation would make coverage cheaper for those who qualify. …
Though Republicans will seize on the projections that insurance premiums for individuals would increase, Democrats will highlight the conclusion that the legislation would lower premiums by 56 to 59 percent for those individuals who would receive subsidies to buy insurance on the exchange created by the legislation. Of those who participate in the exchange, 57 percent would be eligible for subsidies. The subsidy would cover about two-thirds of their premiums, the report says.
This exchange, open to individuals and small-business employees, would provide coverage to just 17 percent of the marketplace, the report notes.
Meanwhile, Alan Reynolds at Cato looked last week at government data on medical premiums, and found out that the market has already reduced their costs (via Newsalert):
If President Obama really wanted to find out how quickly typical health insurance premiums have been increasing, he could have a staffer call the Bureau of Labor Statistics and ask for Table 3A of the “Consumer Price Index Detailed Report Tables Annual Averages 2009.” It turns out the consumer price index for health insurance premiums fell by 3.2% in 2009.
Maybe Durbin should pay more attention to the data, too.
Update: Tom Elia wonders whether anyone’s trying to keep stories straight any more:
Durbin Admits Premiums Will Go Up If Health Care Bill Is Passed
Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010: “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.”
Obama Says Health Premiums Will Go Down
President Obama, March 8, 2010: “Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums.”
Update II: Moe Lane says that Durbin’s message to Obama is, “You lie!”










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Oopsy.
Preach it, little dick.
Wait for the….’what I meant to say….’
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM
endgame?
ted c on March 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Unless we change health practices, we’re not going to slow down the premium increases.
Period.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Up. Down. Left. Right. We’ll control your life. Nothing else matters. – Obama
lorien1973 on March 10, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Call the HHS Sec. and tell her, Dick.
She appears to think it’s just these eeeeeeeevil insurance companies that are raising premiums because they want a higher profit margin that the paltry 4% and to make their top five employees even richer while you die MUWAHAHAHAHA!
Better let her and your President and the American people know that ObamaCare will RAISE the cost of health insurance.
By design.
Good Lt on March 10, 2010 at 12:59 PM
When will one of these clowns finally slip and say: “Well, of course your quality is going down and the costs are going up…the real reason we’re doing is to promote more welfare and control every decision that you can make!”
search4truth on March 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Not quite. Government intervention causes premiums to go up. This has been explained to you multiple times.
lorien1973 on March 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Unless we get tort reform, we’re not going to slow down the premium increases.
Wethal on March 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Health practices? What do you mean?
Good Lt on March 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
HHHMMM kind of defeats the purpose of HC reform! Seriously they all need to finish their terms with a few terms in jail!!!!!!!!
xler8bmw on March 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Obama said that months ago. Remember the 99 year old lady who got a pacemaker and is still living 7 years later, and Obama said – maybe she should have gotten pain medication and just died.
lorien1973 on March 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM
It means “Until we eat and drink only government approved food and beverages”
search4truth on March 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM
We know this because that is exactly how its played out in MA w/ Romneycare.
james23 on March 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM
But, but, but the POTUS said he knew he wasn’t wrong about this in his Summit. I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
d1carter on March 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Good is bad, war is peace, black is white, down is up.
1984 redux
Mallard T. Drake on March 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM
lorien, meet wall.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Giving grandma that pain pill instead of a bypass.
MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Leave it to Illinois’s very own Big Dick(head) Durbin to get up there and tell it like it is!
Coming up: Roland Burris throws in his two cents and still finds no one gives a sh*t what he has to say about anything!
pilamaye on March 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Now, how come you can get away with posting the d*ck word and when I post, it always goes to moderation?
a capella on March 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
And everyone turns up for state-supervised exercise. Just like summer camp.
“Rise and shine
camperscitizens! Everyone at the flagpole in fifteen minutes!”Wethal on March 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Dear Liar promised that, just like the oceans, premiums would go down! What’s next, no unicorns & lollipop trees?
rbj on March 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Cause, you don’t know dick. /s
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Wethal on March 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM
There is a REALLY SSIMPLE way to reform HC! The 1973 HMO Act is why the cost have gone up. Edgar Kaiser found a way to raise cost for less services and the RINO in office Nixon thought it was a great idea!!!! This bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy (who else) was the first step in nationalizing our HC and he was quoted as saying so.
DEMAND THAT LEGISLATION IS REPEALED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xler8bmw on March 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Just got back from the Republican townhall in St. Charles, MO: estimated crowd of over 2200 (they only put this together within the last several days). It was billed as a counter rally to Obama’s appearance at St. Chuck High School later today.
It was awesome!!!!!!
State reps spoke live regarding the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act (which would make it illegal in Missouri to mandate health insurance, among other things). Rep. Todd Akin spoke via video link from Washington and had numerous members from other states explaining various elements of the bill.
The event was great, SRO, and what a pleasant and orderly bunch of racists!
Chewy the Lab on March 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM
No kidding! I know I personally have pounded this drum for Ann many times. Government itself is the main cause of rising health care costs.
darwin on March 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Yep. Just as with the job losses, the idiot dems are looking to trumpet victory when the 12th derivative gets to zero.
Of course, Durbin doesn’t know what a derivative is and The Precedent can’t even deal with fractions, so they don’t even understand what they are talking about. Big surprise, there …
I like how this little admission jives so well with The Precedent talking about how his ‘energy plans’ and how “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
But … America, in the throes of a psychotic break, voted for national suicide with these retards, so this is what we get.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
They’re both right, Durbin and Obama.
Premiums will go up for every policy. But, for a great percent of the people, those with so-called lower incomes, all or part of their premiums will be subsidized by the other policy holders and all taxpayers. This redistribution of income often gets lost in the debate.
TXUS on March 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Nothing will slow down the premium increases.
ladyingray on March 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Excessive testing….which tort reform could honestly help. Give it time, however. The change wouldn’t be instant.
Excessive doctor influence. For YEARS, we’ve known that 80% of what doctors do in real life could easily be handled by nurse practicioners at a much lower cost. Look for a fight on that one from doctors. That’s the easy part of their paycheck.
Excessive prescriptions. They lowered the threshhold for blood pressure and drastically increased the number of people on meds. That’s expensive change there. Frankly, at the level they lowered it too, a good 30 minute brisk walk per day would have done the same.
Patient education. Did you know, for example, that a woman who takes a 30 minute walk a day is getting the same benefit as taking a pill for osterperosis?
Continue the educational “pressure” on all of us to act more responsibly about our own health. I’m not any different from anyone else. It takes a LOT of reminders that eating eggs benedict really should be a treat on an annual basis. *haha
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
If the feds take over health care, mandated coverage will only grow as the lobbyist money rolls in.
This means that mental health, massages and chiropractors will have to be covered, among other things.
Premiums will skyrocket.
It’s not a question of whether premiums will go up, it’s whether it will be a 50% increase or a 100% increase.
And taxes will go up as a bonus.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM
The premiums will only increase until the private insurance industry is destroyed . When the rats have Cuber-style socialized medicine , the sheeple will be convinced it is free .
borntoraisehogs on March 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Us Amish people laugh at your government’s ability to control your healthcare. We are glad we are exempt from this sort of dictatorial control.
lorien1973 on March 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM
LOL
ladyingray on March 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM
I could put you in touch with a very nice voodoo doctor.
katy the mean old lady on March 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Y’mean like forcing insurance companies to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions? Like that?
a capella on March 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Leave it to Illinois’s very own Big Dick(head) Durbin to get up there and tell it like it is!
Coming up: Roland Burris throws in his two cents and still finds no one gives a sh*t what he has to say about anything!
pilamaye on March 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Ihatemysenators Ihatemysenators Ihatemysenators
Did I mention that I hate my senators?
We live close enough to the Indiana border that it’s within walk distance(MY idea of walking distance is different that most others).
So close-yet so far away.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Rules of being allowed in the D.C. Politician Club of Power
1.
Break the system.
2
Then have the media repeat the Mantra……”The government seeks to repair damage by the evil _________”
3.
Politicians “respond to the will of the American People” and call for FURTHER GOV’T INTERVENTION.
4.
Repeat as necessary until Complete politburo control is accomplished in America.
PappyD61 on March 10, 2010 at 1:10 PM
I’d like to see Rush’s “Costa Rico” solution be the avenue for people who really don’t take responsibility for their health.
I’d like to see our basic services remain high quality.
But one thing I never see anyone talking about is how many people who really have completely abused their bodies are demanding excessive services when the time comes to pay the price.
I don’t think that’s a fair system, either.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Death Panels will!
rebuzz on March 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM
D.C. is not a reality based community.
INC on March 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Those are good examples and could be voluntarily incorporated without government intervention, except tort reform.
darwin on March 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM
I love it when they slip up and say something that’s not a lie. Like Pelosi saying that we have to pass Obamacare so that we can find out what’s in it. Mindless minions.
kingsjester on March 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM
They are all a bunch of liars.
WisCon on March 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Premiums rise because we get more and more health care available to us every day, and because the US pays for all this R+D. Of course, The Precedent lied about this, too, when he said that “we are paying more for less”. We pay more for more, and then the rest of the world gets what we payed extra for, free, as they draft off of us.
The only way to stop the rise in premiums is to stop the advancement of medical care available, which is what the dems’ health scare will do. The sad part is that the dems’ plan will stop R+D, but the inefficiencies and friction introduced by more government will, by itself, introduce a new, powerful upward force on premiums, for which we will then truly be paying more for less, as that is how all of the stagnating ideas of socialism affect things.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Y’mean like forcing insurance companies to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions? Like that?
a capella on March 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM
I have a pre-existing condition that under the current system I have yet to be denied coverage for.
Under Obama care though…
annoyinglittletwerp on March 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Obama needs to demonize health insurance providers. Even a dimwit like the President can fathom poll numbers enough to know that he can’t sell the takeover of healthcare by going to a few staged town halls and charm a bunch of planted “citizens” into accepting his scheme. Obama needs to keep up the message that he is the only thing keeping insurance rates from going up so the CPI is nothing but racist data.
highhopes on March 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Is this the same Alan Reynolds that said there will be No Housing Bubble Trouble?
WashJeff on March 10, 2010 at 1:14 PM
BREAKING NEWS from the fly on the wall in Senator Durbins’ office:
Secretary: “Senator Durbin, Rahm Emmanuel is on the phone and he said he’d like to see you in the showers in 5 minutes.”
PappyD61 on March 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM
REPEAL HMO ACT OF 1973 THAT IS THE PROBLEM!
The History of HMOs
by Scott Holleran (November 1, 1999)
The new year begins as employees begin a process called open enrollment–when many employees designate a health plan through their employer. Unfortunately, most are forced to enroll in a managed care plan, i.e., an HMO or PPO. That’s right: force actually lies at the core of today’s health care system.
From their beginnings, HMOs were designed–by Democrats and Republicans–to eliminate individual health insurance. The result is a vast network of health care collectives (HMOs, PPOs, Point-of-Service plans) created by government that are destined to do harm to individuals.
The individual was first discouraged from buying insurance in 1942 when employee health premiums were made tax deductible to employers–not to individuals. Congress created Medicare in 1965, making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.
Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance. As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for everyone’s health care and promoted the idea of a health maintenance organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.
President Nixon appeased the left and proposed the HMO Act, which Congress passed in 1973. The law created new, supposedly cheaper health coverage with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.
Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.
The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual. The government had effectively instituted HMOs, at the insistence of the left and the capitulation of conservatives and pragmatic businessmen.
Nixon’s HMO Act was passed 25 years ago. Since then, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed
bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment. The patient may also be refused treatment and die.
Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.
Unrestricted free choice in medicine–health insurance chosen, provided and paid for by the individual–has practically vanished. A few indispensable provisions of the House GOP’s recent health care proposal, crafted by prospective House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, (R, IL), offer renewed hope.
Hastert’s proposal offers every patient a choice to purchase health insurance as an individual–neither through an employer nor through government–by legalizing Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for all Americans, (MSAs are currently restricted to a small group of self employed, uninsured, small business people and 390,000 Medicare recipients.)
The GOP proposes to make every patient eligible for MSAs, lift restrictions, and grant full tax deductibility to the self-employed for health insurance premiums.
MSA opponents, including Hillary Clinton and Kennedy, believe MSAs will attract young and healthy patients and, therefore, raise premiums for the remaining population. According to the IRS and private health plans, the opposite is true: fully one third of thousands of MSA enrollees were previously lacking any health insurance and the median age for an MSA health insurance policyholder is over 40.
The distinct lack of a free market in individual health insurance, not a lack of regulations, lead to the domination of managed care. The next Congress, possibly under Hastert’s leadership, should grant 100 percent individual tax deductibility and fully expand MSAs and it should do so immediately. Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, an MSA proponent, ought to take the lead in proclaiming the provisions as a step toward what America’s health care system needs most: health insurance which preserves the right to choose–and pay for–one’s own health care.
xler8bmw on March 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Securing the borders and not granting amnesty … but working to return them to country of origin will lower health care costs.
Of course the main goal of ObamaCare is health care for illegals.
darwin on March 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM
My 78 year old Mother-in-Law would argue with you on that one. But keep up your disillusion. Look at the pretty unicorns and the skittles.
PappaMac on March 10, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Just wait until they introduce their “life insurance reform” and disallow life insurance companies from forcing physicals or taking age into account when they price their policies.
“Life insurance is a right!!” — moonbat traitor
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 1:16 PM
I am confused Ed.
If I currently pay nothing, then have to pay $100 a month.. how have my “prices decreased?”
Is it to say the net/net price would decrease due to more covered, whereas they werent before? Because even that is faulty – for the issue is a premium increase, i.e. price – which again – if I pay nothing now, how is even $10 a month a “decrease?”
Healthcare cost and premium price seem to be confused here…
It is also point #1 I have made with ProBamacare people… if you cant afford insurance now – how is a mandatory IRS fine going to help you out???
I have a tough time believing people are +/- a few dollars a month for healthcare coverage; more so when you add a fine or IRS lein on top of it. Which again – how does that help poor folks?
Odie1941 on March 10, 2010 at 1:17 PM
There was a really terrific article a couple of weeks back about this issue. The thesis was that healthcare used to be, basically, catastrophic, similar to car insurance.
However, because it was provided through employers, it became a kind of tax shelter for people. More and more services were added. (A large part of that goes back to HMO’s, which were convinced that preventive care paid off.)
Today, it covers such a wide array of services that it’s really gone way beyond insurance.
I agreed totally with the article, even to the point where I think actuarial science probably is muddled for insurance companies. There are simply now too many variables.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:18 PM
The most insidious part of it all is that Obamacare will limit coverage and harm those with the pre-existing condition of not being a union member or Democrat supporter.
highhopes on March 10, 2010 at 1:19 PM
The fact is the fact. That doesn’t mean that someone shouldn’t take BOTH the pill and exercise, too.
But they have done studies.
When you get to the place where walking isn’t possible, then…of course, the pill is better than nothing.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Being conservative? ;-)
WashJeff on March 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM
To quote a favorite cartoonist of mine:
“Americans are living statistically shorter lives because we eat like pigs, smoke like chimneys, and drive like the Dukes of Hazzard—things no doctor can fix.” (and something that even strict government crackdowns is unlikely to change)
We also refuse to find any sort of balance between our egalitarianism and the reality of limited resources – and just look to the hospitals flooded with illegal immigrants for good examples.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:21 PM
I don’t know the definition of ‘endgame’ in Ed’s world. In Allah’s world, it means ‘Obamacare will pass’. ‘Waterloo’ is ‘Obamacare is dead’. There should be a HA dictionary to answer these types of questions, just as long as Ed and Allah are on the same page. Meaning, of course, no ‘nuance’.
joejm65 on March 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Is that the same Fact is the Fact that gave us AGW?
Who did studies? Who paid for the studies?
PappaMac on March 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM
The really tough issues involve both end of life and beginning of life.
I honestly don’t see our society as remotely ready for that to become a public debate.
Some families want to keep their loved ones alive, forever. Other families pull the plug. Some families DO invite terribly disabled babies into the world. Other families would choose abortion.
I just see that this issue isn’t going to be resolved, comfortably, in my own lifetime.
I prefer to focus on what we could possibly address.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Did you actually read the entire article before you jumped to an incorrect conclusion?:
Johnnyreb on March 10, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Subsidies + cost controls = shortages.
That means long wait times, rationing, and — yes people will die, so death panels.
Anil Petra on March 10, 2010 at 1:23 PM
And there’s the core of the plan. Issue “reforms” that increase premia for everyone except those folks receiving a subsidy. Whenceforth all those subsidy-receivers had better damned well know for whom to vote.
Meanwhile the subsidies (which make up the growing difference between what folks pay and what things cost) are an accelerating federal liability, and the overall costs (health as share of GDP) keep growing. We just hide it with a new vote-buying, primed-for-fear-mongering entitlement program.
Clientelism and the road to dependency. Welcome to the express lane.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Hey Senator be very careful.You have went against Don Obama you might wake up with a horse head in your bed.
thmcbb on March 10, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Turbin Durbin will walk this statement back in 5..4..3..2..1..
Dire Straits on March 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM
0_0 Grand slam homerun, Ann.
Had a long talk with my father just the other night where he pointed out that too many people say they’re ready to die…and then expend all manner of resources to delay meeting the Grim Reaper just a little longer when their life-clock is running down. Definitely food for thought.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Not another Obama lie!
drjohn on March 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Well no, we could make the consumers of care actually pay for non-catastrophic care.
If you want to run to the doctor every month because you’re a hypochondriac or don’t take care of yourself, why shouldn’t you pay for it?
The only insurance regulation I would like to see is to enact a floor on health care insurance.
Any expense under $5000, you cover yourself. Period.
Health care costs would plunge within weeks.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 1:26 PM
What happened to that “affordable” thingie?
drjohn on March 10, 2010 at 1:26 PM
Excellent point.
Dire Straits on March 10, 2010 at 1:28 PM
http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/osteoporosis/OSP_prevention.html
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:29 PM
A sociology prof once showed me (a long time ago) the trends for acute illness vs. chronic illness since the beginning of the 20th century. Very, very long story short, we’re living longer because we are less exposured to raw sewage AND we have a better chance of surviving the first heart attack. We’re living longer, but not necessarily healthier. My apologies for taking two semesters of Sociology of Health & Illness and condensing into a few sentences.
joejm65 on March 10, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Just make them all pay SOMETHING for each visit. The first dollar coverage is brutally expensive.
drjohn on March 10, 2010 at 1:29 PM
CDC’s one of my biggest clients. I know this literature. I defy you to find me studies of large-scale (statewide, say) prevention implementation programs that have saved the kind of money we have to save to make this work. Not treatment-on-treated effects, either — program-level cost-benefit analyses. You don’t get level of compliance needed in the general population to pull the prevention cost savings off. And I hope for your sake you don’t want the degree of coercion or control required to achieve compliance.
As for what’s driving costs, Google Baumol cost disease health care, Ann, it’ll be an education.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:30 PM
In other words, the people we give money to will pay less for their health care. Shocker.
hawksruleva on March 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Actually it’s more like giving her a Zantec for heartburn…
lovingmyUSA on March 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM
We have an applicant for Death Panel Czar!
Laura in Maryland on March 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM
WOW, KP on FOX with Megyn Kelly….so hot!
bernzright777 on March 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM
This is the primary reason I’m not supportive of Single-Payer.
It would kick both issues right into the lap of our government.
We’re simply not ready for that.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Right now, what you choose to do is none of my business. Don’t you want to keep it that way? Do you want everyone you know (and everyone you don’t) with rights claims on your behavior?
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Forgot the !@#$%^* plastic cover for my keyboarda again!!!!
lovingmyUSA on March 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Good points, but none of these will be addressed by Obamacare.
cntrlfrk on March 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM
So here is an article that my wife forwarded on to me (she works for a local Hospital System….)
CHECK THIS OUT…..
This is out of Britain…and we do NOT want health care options like the poor Brits have.
search4truth on March 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM
I agree with your ideas, but my point still stands. It is the introduction of new procedures and care that will cause premiums to continue to rise. Before heart transplants, those who needed them just died. Then transplants became a reality and there was an expensive procedure available that had not existed before. Costs must go up to cover that.
At the same time, the cost of already established health care procedures goes down, so people can get the exact same care as 5 years ago for much less (and still better, as the procedures and medicines have been streamlined and made more efficient). But, for someone who wants to be at the cutting edge, the cost will rise. That’s what we pay for, because we demand the best and latest in health care (and we pay for its development, which the rest of the world then takes after we have put out the R+D expenses).
Someone must run at the front of the pack and break the wind for everyone else, but that runner pays a higher cost in energy expended. If the US goes back into the pack, there will be no one at the front and health care advancement for the world will quickly stagnate (likely causing many deaths as Nature doesn’t let up in its attacks).
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 1:36 PM
WOW, KP on FOX with Megyn Kelly….so hot!
bernzright777 on March 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Did KP wash her hair today? Megyn Kelly is HOT!
Dire Straits on March 10, 2010 at 1:37 PM
I’m an HMO baby, so I know you’re right. Preventive care doesn’t really work to prevent costs rising.
I do think it saves lives.
I’ll google your topic.
My real point was to say, keep pushing on the personal responsibility side.
We’ve got the devil and the angel sitting on our shoulders right now, as I see it. On one hand, a lot of people really do prefer to take a pill over a 30 minute walk. Remember, I said, I’m no different! I know the resistence to good health habits.
But I think the government can aid health by giving people real information and real suggestions.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:37 PM
Exactly. Ridiculous, right? And since when do subsidies result in economizing behavior? You insulate people from these costs, they’ll overconsume, driving real costs (the sum of what consumers or government pays for) higher.
Abject stupidity.
This whole damned thing seems designed to provoke a fiscal crisis and break the back of the private insurance industry in one fell stroke.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:38 PM
1. Premiums go up
2. Injection of more bureaucracy
3. Higher taxes to soon inevitably follow
These things we know will occur. And that’s just the economic factors. There are other items that undoubtedly affect our decision making liberty. It’s obvious to understand why a tyrant would want this monstrosity to begin and metastacize. What still remains a mystery, however, is how/why a citizen would want this.
It defies reason to sanction your own assault.
anuts on March 10, 2010 at 1:38 PM
More projection than a TV store.
My wise father was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of saying one is ready to die…and then going into a frenzied panic like a terrified heathen when death is actually imminent.
Now if you or others want to act that way, so be it. Just pay your own way.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Oh Megyn puts KP to shame. And nope, KP did’nt wash her hair, she’s such, a dirty girl :)
bernzright777 on March 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
flash forward 20 years when we have government healthcare and nothing else, how will the public feel about having disabled babies go full term if tests found this out 8 weeks into pregnancy? Why should the public pay for a disabled baby? Huh.
Electrongod on March 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I have no problem with clearing-houses for evidence-based practices. This is mostly what CDC does nowadays. But see how quickly “suggestions” turn into e.g. required annual physicals (a charming little item from Sen. Edwards’ HCA plan).
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »