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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Dems cooking up a plan to avoid a vote in the House by “deeming” the Senate bill passed. Thanks to Louise “Her Dead Sister’s Teeth” Slaughter.
From John Boehner’s office.
Fallen Sparrow on March 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Heck, we weren’t even ready as a nation to discuss the issue of when life begins, as the whole Roe V. Wade debacle showed quite clearly. What a mess! An issue of privacy and keeping strangers from interfering in one’s medical decisions turned into convenience abortions and enforcing the beliefs of half the nation on the other half.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Good one! KP is attractive.
Dire Straits on March 10, 2010 at 1:42 PM
I’ve lost loved ones now, and there’s one thing I do know: Death is very individual.
Some loved ones amazed me with the dignity and grace. Others fought it. And one drained the family with crazy demands.
It’s individual. It’s personal. And NO government is ever going to legislate that fact away.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:42 PM
We really are very independent critters. *haha
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM
The only way government intervention can lower costs to the patient is via subsidies. And that is what this whole damn bill is about. The bill appeals to the under and uninsured because they see it as a way for the government to step in and make it all better by paying for it on their behalf.
The other folks, the ones who will be paying for this entitlement, know better. They know they are on the hook for this thing and will take it in the shorts. And more and more that group of folks, the one’s who will be paying for the other folks, is being revealed to be a LARGE group.
Newsflash to all you 20 somethings: you will be forced to pay for a health care policy so your dollars can “add” to the pie so that the “other folks” get a piece. No longer will you be able to opt-out of your employer program and keep the extra dollars so you can download more tunes for your I-Pod.
Welcome to the land you voted for!
Opposite Day on March 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Not to belabor the point…but how do we really know what information government gives out so generously is valid? The idea is great…but in practice, not so much. See: Global Warming.
search4truth on March 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:37 PM
This is the same line of thinking that concludes that if we supply teenagers with condoms and sex education, pregnancy rates and STD’s will go down.
Inconveniently, teenagers are irresponsible, even when they have sex and as a bonus, men don’t like using condoms.
And most people would rather take a pill then diet and exercise. And a good many of them won’t diet and exercise even if you don’t allow them to have the pill, which means your costs aren’t going to go down no matter how much education and knowledge you give to them, until they start feeling it in the pocketbook.
If people had to pay out of their pockets for doctor visits, pay out of the pockets for prescriptions, etc., they’d find the cheapest deal AND they would decrease the behaviors that cause their health problems in the first place. We’re talking adults here, not teenagers.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM
It leads to other decisions we’d be ashamed to see, too.
The family in question had to go through political channels to have their case resolved. And don’t think for a f***ing second that’s not part of the plan either.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Let’s fight to keep it that way.
Although, government can assist in legally shielding those who want to make a religiously unpopular choice. Just look at the Dutch: now anyone over 70 may soon just have to ask and get assistance to die gracefully.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256670/Holland-proposes-giving-70s-consider-lives-complete-right-die.html
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM
This is interesting. But if they try this ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE! I don’t think they are that stupid!
Dire Straits on March 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM
I know. I was so naive that I assumed that this was understood about public healthcare.
I really never imagined Dems going for matching current insurance plans.
I confess. I assumed public option would be a catastrophic type insurance plan.
Boy, live and learn.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:46 PM
How appropriate that Slaughter would devise a virtual vote on the Senate bill…LOL
d1carter on March 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM
It only looks like we’re arguing about means. They have different ends in mind. Have since ’47.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Do you know what projection is, skippy? Not. Even. Close.
Your “wise” daddy can’t be that smart, and what business is it of yours or his if, when, and how others choose end-of-life care. As it is, we can choose our employer-based insurance, find our own insurance, pay out of pocket, turn to charity or government, or go without. Once the gubment gets involved, we lose that choice.
Laura in Maryland on March 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Heh…the public is going to get ONE option: buy the junk policies that will be sold to people desperate to comply with the new law. And then when the government double-crosses the double-crosser and sets up a monopoly, we’ll really be hosed.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Agree. It cannot be explained enough that insurance is nothing but risk management by design. It is only from government’s intervention that moved insurance from its original designation to include that which is well beyond its business operating mission or purpose. It helps to remember this as much as it does to know what risk management is.
anuts on March 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:46 PM
I would doubt that the public option would be catastrophic, but I’m not absolutely sure about that.
Catastrophic policies are already fairly cheap. I had one in grad school that only covered expenses over $5K and it was $50 a month. You don’t get much more affordable than that, that’s half a cell phone bill for a month.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM
A federal government owned and operated insurance company would surely be catastrophic. No doubt about this.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Go rot your brain on Faux News, you mindless right-wing strumpet. He’s wiser than both you and I put together, which you’re making more obvious by the minute.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM
To me? If they aren’t controlling the costs, then it’s OK. They made us all do sit ups in the 50′s as a part of the school system exercise plan. Today’s exercise programs warn people that these can be somewhat damaging.
Nobody should expect perfection. Things are changing rapidly in the medical field. What your doctor tells you today may be disputed tomorrow.
My point is that people need a system that allows a bit of sensible perspective.
If you’re entire healthcare rests with one entity? Then you’re going to naturally hold that entity responsible.
I don’t think we’re ready to make that the government. It’s not the expansion of the costs that changed my mind on this. It’s the expansion of responsibility.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM
47? Social security?
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Or, the public will be exhausted from dealing with this privately and losing.
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM
How do rates go down for someone who’s already paying $0?
Midas on March 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM
It’s difficult to comprehend the unmitigated gall of Obama and his gaggle of congressional shysters.
rplat on March 10, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Durbin? Where do all these clueless fossils come from? Do they actually need an entire year to comprehend legislation that was written last July?
Put the dinosaurs out of their misery.
Meteor Impact!
percysunshine on March 10, 2010 at 1:55 PM
You’re kind of a negative guy, aren’t you?
Bishop on March 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM
The same way that checks delivered to those who don’t pay taxes are “tax cuts”. Come on, man, get with the new world; a world in which the federal government is needed to “provide competition to the private sector”.
We are well through the looking glass, and being dragged further and further into Blunderland as we speak.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Government can only “aid health” through taxation and coercion.
How many people ignore the educational advice given by their doctors because taking a pill requires less personal responsibility of them.
onlineanalyst on March 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM
I tend to be negative when some inbred, bucktoothed hick insults my father from behind the safety of her computer.
But enough on that subject. I had an interesting idea the other day for those in the medical profession who oppose Obamacare – start a site where those who will definitely quit if it passes can sign their names for all to see. Opponents of same can then use it to show the public just how many doctors and nurses they’ll lose if this triple-cross passes.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 1:59 PM
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM
That’s why any “reform” should be state by state.
Each region of the country is different.
Then we can share best practices, etc.
A “one-size-fits-all” plan is doomed to disaster. What works in California probably won’t work in Mississippi.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM
I didn’t know your mother was registered at Hot Air….hmmm, a family affair.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:01 PM
If you had your way you would have killed her in the womb. Go away.
Fallen Sparrow on March 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM
You’re kind of a negative guy, aren’t you?
Bishop on March 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Y’think? By the way, Dark-Star,college kid: Don’t call our Conservative ladies a synonym (strumpet)for the “wh” word. You don’t know them personally and it does nothing to sway anybody to your argument.
kingsjester on March 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Sounds like we have some minnions of Obama’s science Czar here–you know the one who advocated aborting babies under 2yrs, and old people, who have outlived their usefullness to society…
lovingmyUSA on March 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM
She isn’t. Your psychic powers need polishing. (oh wait, you’re not psychic in the first place, you just like to assume)
What is it with you people and your dead baby fetish? Is it the newest theme in conservative innuendo?
Sorry that whole ‘free speech’ thing doesn’t work for you, btw. You’re as bad as liberals and ‘tolerance’.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM
I support the right of people – at any age past that of voting – to end their lives with dignity without outside interference from anyone.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Oooh..assume…crafty, sport.
Keep stroking Ann…but, make sure you use protection.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM
We would not be in this mess to begin with if there was no Medicare/caid.
Since health care costs are, from what I am to understand (coming from talking to Drs,nurses, medical billing people), based on what Medicare/caid pays for certain things, the govt, in effect, has been setting the price of healthcare already for how long?!
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Insurance rates will rise…
(wait for it)
… unexpectadly.
Seven Percent Solution on March 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM
They can do that now with a rope and a beam, what do they have to drag the rest of us into it?
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Again, what is it with conservatives and locker-room-level sexual smears?
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Sippery slope.
Boy, legalizing that would never be abused.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM
….That’s not the crapcare I knew, Seven.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM
overnment can only “aid health” through taxation and coercion.
How many people ignore the educational advice given by their doctors because taking a pill requires less personal responsibility of them.
onlineanalyst on March 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM
AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Again, what is it with conservatives and locker-room-level sexual smears?
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM
“Sexual” smears? You started it.
kingsjester on March 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Just an observation, slick.
BTW, what is it with liberals and those who love them, and stupidity?
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Truman’s first real swing at nationalization.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 2:11 PM
That hardly fits the definition of ‘dignified’, does it? Also rather traumatic for those left behind.
All they’re asking is a legal declaration that nobody interfere, to keep the life-at-all-costs crowd away from one of the most personal decisions of their lives.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Seriously, don’t you feel…odd…for writing these two posts?
Bishop on March 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Lighten up, Francis.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM
No, but neither does the family members pressuring the elderly to die in dignity so they can spend their money rather than wasting it on end of life care.
Which is what’s happening in areas where euthinasia is legal.
Not to mention the inevitable cost cutting stuff. A nation that cheerfully allows third trimester abortions can quickly conclude how much a few less elderly years can save us per year.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM
What is it with you people who advocate infanticide?
If you have no problem with killing a child in the womb, you have no problem killing me, an adult, or stealing my money or property. I have no problem with free speech; I have a problem with killing the innocent. Why don’t you?
Fallen Sparrow on March 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Folks…. keep yer eye on the ball…
The REAL problem with this whole “Bill” is it WILL NOT WORK!
The penalties for not having insurance will get struck down, and various States are already working on laws saying you DON’T have to buy insurance.
But the Insurance companies will HAVE to take you with pre-existing conditions.
So, you get sick, THEN get insurance. Thus the “Pool” of those having insurance will only be those whose WORK pays for it, or those who are SICK.
Rates will SKYROCKET, and Insurance companies will go out of business.
WHOLE THING IS UNWORKABLE.
Romeo13 on March 10, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Meh. You can’t stop someone from killing himself if he really wants to. The only ones the law is for are those who want to commit suicide but aren’t physically capable of doing themselves in, though this number is very, very, very small.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:18 PM
That’s the plan, Stan.
DrSteve on March 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM
But NOT if old people are killed off and recycled into soylent products which can then be sold on the free market to recoup costs.
Bishop on March 10, 2010 at 2:21 PM
More projection and more lies. Channeling Rush Limbaugh today?
I support the right of women to terminate pregnancies if medically necessary, without having to wade through a crowd of sign-waving fanatics or worry about legal repercussions. That is all. I cannot support on-demand abortion; let unwanted pregnancies serve as a very painful lesson in using birth control.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Maybe we should send Slaughter some of those gag-store chattering faslse teeth along with a “You’re fired!” note.
onlineanalyst on March 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM
You know sometimes people want to choose suicide bcs they truly believe they have nothing to offer & no hope for recovery.
But people DO recover from things that at the time may seem hopeless or incurable.
I have know people suffering horribly from cancer in my life.
And yet suicide was not in their thoughts.
People who are dying, up intil the very last moment, still have value.
But in such an emotional state, how can we expect a person to have the wherewithal to make such a weighty decision?
This belief that people have a ‘right’ to end their lives is dangerous.
By itnerference do you mean that someone can give them access to the tools of suicide (i.e. drugs), or do you mean they just cannot persuade them it’s the right decision?
Bcs either way, it’s killing.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Define ‘medically necessary’, slick……
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM
You don’t own my life and neither does the government.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:25 PM
I thought conservatives were for ‘maximum freedom’, so long as it didn’t hurt others.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:25 PM
If that is true-great.
But of course, medically necessary abortions are rather rare.
So I would wager that if these were the only abortions that were legal in this country, you’d probably see a lot smaller picket & protest lines at abortion clinics.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:25 PM
There are some here who wold say that capitalism gone wild, freedom to spew ALL nonsense, etc is true conservatism.
I do not subscribe to that view.
And letting a person kill themselves DOES hurt people.
It also hurts society.
And it devalues life just a little bit more.
Life is not only about feeling good & being happy.
It’s also about feeling bad & suffering.
We are meant to experience it all.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Then you must support the idea that the abortion must be accompanied with the appropriate paperwork defining and providing evidence for the threat to the life of the mother, with legal repercussions for those who are performing elective abortions.
The crowds are much less onerous to the woman seeking an abortion than the legal paperwork and tests would be, and far less expensive!
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:28 PM
If people had to pay out of their pockets for doctor visits, pay out of the pockets for prescriptions, etc., they’d find the cheapest deal AND they would decrease the behaviors that cause their health problems in the first place. We’re talking adults here, not teenagers.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM
In 2003 I had two major bulimia relapses. The during the first one I went to a Christian residential place that said that our insurance would cover my month long stay. The place lied-our insurance turned them down three days in. We paid for it out of savings.
That October I had another major relapse. This time the insurance came right out and said that they weren’t paying for anything beyond counseling. Well I kept making myself sicker so that they would let me go residential and I could avoid having to do any hard work on my ‘stuff’-except that our insurance stood their ground.
At that point I had a choice-did I continue to insist that my new husband use the money that he had work so hard for to my benefit and did I continue to play the victim-or did I realize that the world didn’t revolve around me and that I had a responsibility to my husband, my son, and myself to try to get a handle on the monster that had owned me for-at that time-17 years.
I chose option number 2.
While I’ll always struggle with exercise bulimia-I’ve got an industrial sized can of slimfast on the kitchen counter-but I’ve been ‘clean’ from diet pills, diuretics, etc since October 2003.
Bulimia used to control my life-it was my life.
It doesn’t anymore.
My marriage and relationship with my son is light-years different as well!
I give credit to G-d…of course.
I don’t know if all this would have happened when it did had the insurance company not put their foot down,
If that ‘safety net’ had continued to be there I would have had no motivation to deal with things.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 10, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Your act of killing yourself affects others.
Even if you don’t think it does.
It also affects the society.
I guess if you really want to do the deep, go to another country that allows it, or do it illegally.
You’d be dead, so who cares, right?
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:25 PM
We are.
Again, why does the government have to be involved at all?
Because 1) you can off yourself if you want to. The guvmint isn’t conducting raids on oldsters to make sure they’re not killing themselves. And:
2) You make the government acknowledge and regulate something and there are tons of unintended consquences and this is an area where unintended consequences are not worth it.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM
DEED
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM
http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1203
What is a medically-necessary abortion?
This type of abortion involves the intentional termination of the life of an unborn child once it is determined continuing the pregnancy would end the life of both mother and child. Abortions for this reason are becoming more rare with the advancements of medicine, but they do occur.
—–
Try and discredit THAT source, if you can.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM
And if the govt were to make it illegal everywhere, either state or fed, if you really want to do it, you will.
So you can go ahead & defy it if you want to.
But no one is going to be able to legally help you.
And if you still want your family to get the life insurance & there’s a suicide clause, then I guess someone bought the wrong insurance.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Thank you for that…now for a reality check, slick.
Tiller the baby killer, before he was gunned down, would perform a late term abortion for women with a headache. As long as you had the $5K, you got your abortion.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM
I get what you’re saying.
BTW-is there a fed law that prohibits killing yourself, or are these state laws?
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM
God bless you.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Not at all. Someone else devaluing his life doesn’t make me devalue mine. If it has the effect on someone, then that’s just tough. As it is, now, there are stories and movies glorifying suicide all the time, so the fact that it is “illegal” is pretty much meaningless. Those laws are totally unenforceable (except in failed attempts) anyway, except in the very rare case where someone isn’t physically capable of doing it. But, closing the windows and lighting a Habachi in your living room isn’t too difficult, really.
Life is to you what you decide it is. This is why religion is an important part of human society.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM
annoyinglittletwerp on March 10, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Exactly. I work with two people who had the opposite problem, they had to have the stomach-staple surgery.
One is doing well, but the other weighs as much as she did before she got the surgery.
Whereas either of them could have solved the issue at no cost, by eating less and exercising.
How much do we pay for overweight people who need to have hip surgery, knee surgery, foot surgery, back surgery etc., because the stress on the joints add up?
I would be that 50% of our health problems could be solved by proper eating and by proper exercise and it’s not an education issue.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Not like I haven’t known Tiller’s backstory for months now…
Oh, and this fact does nothing to refute my definition.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM
But it’s MY LIFE, not yours. MINE. This is not a question of legality, especially since you understand that you can’t stop suicide, but one of who thinks they control the most essential thing I own. I own my own life. It is a point of philosophy and principle.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:38 PM
A definition and reality are two different things, slick. I’m living in the real world. You are living in theory.
You remind me of someone….wants to fundamentally change this country…our way of life…I just can’t put my finger on it….I hear he’s really smart and his pant’s creases are so suave.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM
According to a quick search, it’s mostly legal (except for six states I’ve also read).
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pas.html
Assisting in a suicide is illegal in all states except for Oregon.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Those are tax “credits”, ns, not cuts.
Gotta spread that wealth around, baby. But giving a “tax credit” check to somebody (who doesn’t pay taxes) sounds a whole lot better than giving them a “government welfare” check (which is what it really is).
AZCoyote on March 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM
I presented you with an irrefutable definition and an unchallengeable source, and all you can do is to cite an example of a lawbreaking individual.
If only medically-necessary abortions are the law of the land, arrest those who break the law and move on. You don’t open the floodgates because some people don’t want to pay the piper for their own actions.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Squirreled away in the provisions of the current “health care” bill are home visits to “assist” people in practicing healthy habits.
Are these some of the jobs! jobs! jobs! that Pelosi is touting?
onlineanalyst on March 10, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Yes, I’m well aware of that. I was making a point about how they were incorrectly labeled as “tax cuts” by The Precedent and the dems/lame streams. It went along with the rest of the post.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:44 PM
I support the right of people – at any age past that of voting – to end their lives with dignity without outside interference from anyone.
Dark-Star on March 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Key words there…
lovingmyUSA on March 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM
–NoDonkey, most of us with insurance already pay substantial co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions. My prescriptions cost roughly $100 for a three month supply.
Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM
One thing I did when I had a catastrophic policy was that I thought about what I could do to lower my risk of getting injured.
Drove safer. No longer participated in contact sports. Just generally took better care of myself.
Our costs are huge because of the ridiculous way our health insurance is set up. If we were starting all over today, there’s no way any rational adults would do it this way.
Starting with employer based insurance which makes no sense whatsoever when you think about it.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:47 PM
I am assuming that Dark-Star meant interference from government entities.
neurosculptor on March 10, 2010 at 2:47 PM
–I’d disagree with that definition. If continuing the pregnancy would result in significant problems (not just ending the mother’s life) for the mother or the child, I’d call that medically-necessary.
Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM
I know, I do too but it’s still only a fraction of the cost.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 2:48 PM
So it’s sometimes medically necessary to kill the child in order to save it?
NoDonkey on March 10, 2010 at 2:50 PM
All pregnancies result in ‘significant problems’, one way or another.
DarkCurrent on March 10, 2010 at 2:51 PM
It’s funny that you mention that…because Tiller worked under the auspice of our Healthcare Secretary, Kathleen Sebilius. He paid her off, too. He was a BIG TIME donor.
As far as your definition….well, great job, student. A plus, but the real world is played very differently. That’s all I’m trying to point out to you.
HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 2:52 PM
–Not to save it but to save the mother.
Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM
This is what I have the problem with.
No one should make it easy, or possible, for another to off themselves.
Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM
–I’m paying about 30% of the plan’s negotiated rate out of pocket for quite a few prescriptions and the standard doctor visit plus premiums of about $400/month. My guess is that, taken together, I’m probably paying all-in close to 50% of the negotiated rate for many items. It’s tough to see how increasing the amount people pay beyond that percentage will do much to change their behavior.
Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »